That was a fairly interesting vid, thanks for the link.
Some of the history bits were a bit "meh" at first, but when chained together create a rather sad image of society, especially when keeping in mind the power of the media in shaping people's perception and values.
I knew the "damsel in distress" was a common theme - but I did not think it would be this excessive and established in the gaming industry. The development background of that Star Fox game was surprising, in a bad way. The designers, I assume, are not even doing things like these out of malice; it's just a standard they have grown up with, adopted and continue to subconsciously propagate, neglecting their social responsibility as apparently they don't see anything wrong with it.
Fortunately, not all games have been like that - and movies/series/novels have, in general, long since become somewhat more varied regarding their portrayal.
Got 6 minutes in and said "feth this". My feminist radar broke from going off the charts while listening to her, therefore making anything else she was going to say irrelevant to my ears as she was just going to spew a giant pile of garbage. But at least on the plus side I know which YouTube channel I am avoiding like the plague
I find it interesting she didn't list any games made in the last few years that didn't happen to be Nintendo titles, so really is this a commendation of video game portrayals of women or Nintendo recycling the same plot every couple of years (while conveniently ignoring Samus Aran and hand waving away half the Mario franchise).
LordofHats wrote:I find it interesting she didn't list any games made in the last few years that didn't happen to be Nintendo titles
Apparently, more recent (and more varied) portrayals of women in video games will come in part 2, as announced at the end of the video. Part 1 was an introduction covering the early days and origins of the cliché.
That Starfox change was seriously messed up, but not surprising at all. Women are second class citizens in a certain Far East nation that somehow manages to be the most sexist and racist first world country in the world and not get constantly called out on it.
Bioware likes this trope. They did it to Bastila and Liara, but both become useful members of your team later on whether or not you actually include them in your parties. IDR Dragon Age, BG, or NWN well enough to comment on those.
Interestingly, KotOR2 inverts this hard.
Spoiler:
Canonically, the Jedi Exile is a female and escapes on her own/with a little help from Kreia. Along the way she frees a male, Atton, from a force cage. Atton had no way to save himself.
NWN2
Spoiler:
In Neverwinter Nights 2, after you rescue Neeshka from the Fort Locke guards, she says "Does that make me a damsel in distress? I hope not, I hate those women!"
There mustn't be an Armenian on Earth who's name doesn't end with 'ian' (or a derivative thereof). But that's not what I wanted to talk about.
I was just about let my immediate reaction of "Oh good, another feminist whining about a lack of equality when really 'equality' for them just means reversing the roles men and women play and not actual equality" let me close the window, but I decided to let the video play and see what it was and at least respect the creator and the effort she obviously put into this (and what I guess is meant to be an longer series of videos).
At its core the video is correct in that it quite obviously points out the bad habit of placing women and female characters as objects rather than active participants in the story. Sadly I think it misses a lot of historical context and economic reality in that, unlike today, the greater majority of video games were played by boys (not men), and that as a result the games were targeted at them. Yes, the example of the female protagonist scrapped for another Star Fox game is particularly egregious in how it played out, but I have to say that it might also have to do with some real world economics (lots of 10-year-old boys getting a game on Christmas where they play as a girl would not go down well with them).
Yes, things have changed. Women make up a far greater percentage of the video game-playing demographics and the average age of gamers has rocketed up into the 30's (I believe, or close enough), but you cannot look at the games of the 80's and even 90's without at least acknowledging that the majority of people playing these types of games probably didn't even know what objectification was. Most of them just wanted to fight stuff, and most of them probably thought girls were "gross" and gave out "cooties" (and, to be fair, most of the girls of the same age probably thought the same thing about the boys).
So I think that this video is a little one-sided in the way it seems to remove the games from the environment (and the eras) they were created it. You cannot detach objects of history from the history itself. History provides a context, and this video strips away that context. It doesn't make the video wrong mind you, it just weakens its stance somewhat.
As LordofHats said, the video is actually a unintentional roasting of how repetitive and cliché Nintendo has become - maybe Yahtzee's rage is justified there - and how immature they are when it comes to women in their games.
Unfortunately I fear that this video series is just going to boil down to a conclusion that "Women in video games either all need to be rescued or are warriors wearing chain-mail bikinis! All men are pigs.". I hope I'm wrong.
Historical context is almost important, although I'd say it isn't really false to point fingers, depending on how crass the individual case is. As you said, things have changed - but why? Or why did they not change sooner? The entertainment industry, or indeed all media, play a crucial role in helping to shape the morale, virtues and perceptions of the next generation of people. And although that may be a naive view to hold, I'd say that's a bit of social responsibility right there. Even when commercial interests are at play, there are enough examples to show that compromises are always possible, and I have a feeling that it was mainly compromises (not just extending to entertainment) that actually allowed the issue to slowly move forward at all, instead of becoming deadlocked between conservativism and extremists from both sides. One step at a time, as they say.
And really, that Zelda TV spot alone ...
"Wilst thou get the girl ... or play like one"
But it was a different time, and I don't think anyone actually did any of this out of malice. That is perhaps the saddest thing - that a lot of people back then did not even perceive it as a problem, as "normal" meant different things.
Who knows what will be regarded as "normal" in another 50 years from now.
Oh that's easy. Entertainment industry change is glacial. Look at the music and film industry. Look how slow they are/were to adapt to the internet. Look how their response wasn't to embrace it but to block it (SOPA/PIPA). Look how the one company that embraced change (Apple) jumped ahead. iTunes may be a virus summoned from the depths of hell, but it was revolutionary and is influential still. Look at how internet-based television systems are coming into their infancy just now. Digital distribution of games (and how utterly fethed up that is, even Steam, the best of them). The music industry finally started making money again last year as they got a handle of the new ways people approach purchasing music. Just this year the folks who do the Nielsen Ratings finally decided that their method of determining ratings might be a bit out dated. Is it any surprise that the gaming industry followed suit and took such a long time to shift their own practices to an ever-changing and increasingly older and more diverse (and connected) audience?
Lynata wrote: But it was a different time, and I don't think anyone actually did any of this out of malice. That is perhaps the saddest thing - that a lot of people back then did not even perceive it as a problem, as "normal" meant different things.
I would never try to use "it was a different time" as an excuse or as a way of explaining away something, but it must be used as a context for why these things were the way they were.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I made a post to show how little I respect a woman's opinion on a given subject.
I think that's what you actually meant to type.
No I mean the video was trite and boring. The Starfox thing was interesting but the rest of it had me nodding off. I also don't see what her gender has to do with gak content.
Ahtman wrote: Well it is finally released, and I for one enjoyed watching it.
Why "finally"? It sounds like there is a backstory here, which I am interested in hearing enough to make this post, but not enough to google it and find out for myself.
So far as the video, I found it interesting if perhaps a bit overlong. The video clip usage was very good, but the... I'm not sure exactly how to say this, her diction? Was a little monotonous. It felt a little like a student in a speech class reading a paper to the class. I wish I could articulate my sentiment a little bit better here. It's the first one though, so perhaps it will improve.
I certainly didn't know the origin of the "lady tied to a train track" meme, and had liked how some of the analogies worked to explain things (explaining that in objectification"she's the ball").
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I made a post to show how little I respect a woman's opinion on a given subject.
I think that's what you actually meant to type.
I think this was a wildly unreasonable thing to have said. I watched all of it, but as I said above, I think the presentation was fairly dry. While I'm reasonably confident that this thread will become a festering, locked cesspool just like every previous thread in recent memory thread that's discussed women's increasing involvement in what are traditionally male pastimes; I don't see any reason to speed that process along by making such a hyperbolic statement in response to a relatively innocuous post.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: please disregard where I asked for the backstory. I didn't realize that was Anita Sarkeesian; I definitely remember that kerfluffle a while back.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I made a post to show how little I respect a woman's opinion on a given subject.
I think that's what you actually meant to type.
I think this was a wildly unreasonable thing to have said. I watched all of it, but as I said above, I think the presentation was fairly dry. While I'm reasonably confident that this thread will become a festering, locked cesspool just like every previous thread in recent memory thread that's discussed women's increasing involvement in what are traditionally male pastimes; I don't see any reason to speed that process along by making such a hyperbolic statement in response to a relatively innocuous post.
If you're referring to that last objectification thread that was in DD I thought it went reasonably well. We got through two entire responses before someone cried femi-nazis. The amusing thing is I spent that entire thread getting called a feminist and femi-nazi, and I'm pretty sure Amaya is implying I'm a chauvinist pig in here. Oh how the wheel turns.
I hadn't seen that, or at least the part you're referring to, anyway. I was thinking of that one (10 minutes of searching later) ironically, you started about sexism in the modelling hobby.
Fairly solid video, although this really served as little more than an introduction. Hopefully the later ones in the series will expand to cover much greater depth.
I don't really know why her videos are seen as so controversial. I haven't seen many of them, but from what I have, the points she does make are quite reasonable.
It was a completely unnecessary post that reflected only a negative opinion of the video and the subject of discussion.
He then reinforced his original post by making a further negative statement. Please explain why it is gak content. If you're going to insult something and don't want to be considered a "chauvinistic pig" state your reasoning or don't bother to post.
I stopped at "woman are not weaker, its a myth"... Actually sweetheart it's a biological fact, woman are as smart as men etc.
But they are weaker...
And "woman dont need to be protected by.men"
Ok thats bull too, because men are stronger, woman do need to be protected by men, from other less scrupulous men, if that suddenly stopped happening.. Well bad stuff happens in those countries.
Not evening going into cultural and economic backgrounds for the games in the video, maybe we should also consider the stories themselves. I mean, in effect even today, almost all video game story lines are just excuse plots. By its very definition the plot is irrelevant. It's not the point. Princess Peach could easily be a giant delicious mushroom that will make Mario the size of the galaxy (PUN!) and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the game.
Setting the issue of women in games aside, why is anyone wasting their time examining 'critically' a plot device that effectively means nothing outside of it's simple existence? She's certainly right that in the cases mentioned the woman is a object (though I STRONGLY disagree that being a damsel in distress automatically = being a disempowered object to be won by a 'typically' male protagonist. She's smoking her own farts a little strongly to be making that claim) but ultimately, why should anyone care? The plot is meaningless beyond simply giving the protagonist a reason to take action. The damsel is simply a place holder with no thematic meaning (Look up the term MacGuffin).
I'm not really sure that's something worth getting up in arms about. As H.B.M.C. at least in these older games, men were pretty much the sole demographic. Particularly young adolescent men. When looking for an excuse to have a plumber go on a rampage through the mushroom kingdom taking a bunch of coins and stomping on the wild life, 'save the princess' is just something tacked on to provide a context to the action. No one is going to walk away from that game and think 'women are weak and must be sheltered by us strong manly types.' The suggest such a thing is kind of stupid. Who thinks that when playing a Mario game? Someone who should be ignore for more reasons than that most likely.
EDIT: In essence I'm saying that the anyone who concludes Mario is about how men must protect women is also probably the kind of idiot who concluded Pokemon is about how we need to find the nearest two animals and train them to kill each other. It's just reading into the lines so much that I can only shake my head at the idiocy being displayed.
What's really shocking here is that she apparently got Kickstarter money to make this video. What did she do, opening up Microsoft Media maker throw together some clips and then ask people to pay her for what anyone can do in a weekend?
Bioware likes this trope. They did it to Bastila and Liara, but both become useful members of your team later on whether or not you actually include them in your parties. IDR Dragon Age, BG, or NWN well enough to comment on those.
That's because as a trope Damsel in Distress is really just a plot point. It can appear almost anywhere in the plot an author wants it to be, and ultimately what it means is quite varied. Equating all damsels in distress to disempowered objects to be won shows a remarkable lack of experience. I can think of at last a half dozen female characters off the top of my head that had DoD moments, and none of them are by any means weak characters in need of big strong men to protect them 24.7,
Formosa wrote: I stopped at "woman are not weaker, its a myth"... Actually sweetheart it's a biological fact, woman are as smart as men etc.
But they are weaker...
And "woman dont need to be protected by.men"
Ok thats bull too, because men are stronger, woman do need to be protected by men, from other less scrupulous men, if that suddenly stopped happening.. Well bad stuff happens in those countries.
I dislike feminists...
See KalashnikovMarine, this is how you make a legitimate complaint.
@LoH, it's only an issue when it is intentionally abused constantly. Such as in Nintendo games.
What's really shocking here is that she apparently got Kickstarter money to make this video. What did she do, opening up Microsoft Media maker throw together some clips and then ask people to pay her for what anyone can do in a weekend?
It was in the news a while ago, she started this kickstarter then a she got a handful predicable idiot responses from 4chan types.
What she then did was publish them on her blog, blow it all out of proportion and tried to make out that these guys where somehow representative of men in general and they where evidence that society was misogynistic, as opposed to just being a few idiots on the internet.
The usual tumblr feminist bloggers and the left wing media picked up on it, ran the story and before you know it she had something like 100K in her kickstarter.
I watched some of her videos on other subjects and quite frankly they are full of hyperbole. There is even one where she tried to prove that Christmas songs are misogynistic.
@LoH, it's only an issue when it is intentionally abused constantly. Such as in Nintendo games.
Ignoring that pretty much half of Nintendo's marketing and business model relies on nostalgia from the first generation of gaming. They're not abusing women they're abusing fond childhood memories.
It was in the news a while ago, she started this kickstarter then a she got a handful predicable idiot responses from 4chan types.
What she then did was publish them on her blog, blow it all out of proportion and tried to make out that these guys where somehow representative of men in general and they where evidence that society was misogynistic, as opposed to just being a few idiots on the internet.
The usual tumblr feminist bloggers and the left wing media picked up on it, ran the story and before you know it she had something like 100K in her kickstarter.
I watched some of her videos on other subjects and quite frankly they are full of hyperbole. There is even one where she tried to prove that Christmas songs are misogynistic.
She's also apparently terrible at research. Dinosaur Planet originally had a male protagonist alongside Krystal named Sabre, who was later replaced with Fox McCloud after Miyamoto's comments and during development Krystal was set aside as a playable character which is a strikingly different story from the one she tells and it can be found in a google search in about 5 minutes: http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/01/27/dinosaur-planet. Frankly the game reeks more of executive interference wanting the game to be available for the Gamecube's launch with a popular brand name in the title than some conspiracy to rob the world of a heroine (Krystal being playable was hardly the only thing that seems to have been cut from the game).
@OuzeRight that's the thread I was clumsily trying to refer to. Lack of sleep over here sorry.
But yeah in that thread to my recollection the first response was "Hurr it's a guy thing" then "Derp femi nazis"
We did actually get some decent discussion out of that thread but there was so much derp... honest opinion I think the first step to having a real conversation about feminism and nerd culture at large, and any form of gaming in particular is we need to get everyone to take a step back from being so sensitive. I remember a lot of comments to the tune of individuals feeling they were being "attacked" or put upon in some way, just by having the conversation. Judged maybe. Even though I don't think any one in the thread arguing for "feminism" as it were was saying anything against a lot of the mainstay of the hobby. Kingdom Death's KS came up a lot because of it's cheesecaketastic miniatures, and also because it's what set off the writer of the article I linked in the OP, but I don't remember any one saying anything against cheesecake.
Jumping back on topic, this really is becoming an geekdom wide pressure, the negative reaction to this KS, followed by the "fake gamer girls" controversy and some issues with cosplayers at cons of all types have been flaring up more and more as more women get involved in various hobbies and fandoms. Again, no idea for a fix, but the tension's mounting.
@Amaya, congratulations, you've proven yourself to not be worth engaging with! Have nice day!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Jumping back on topic, this really is becoming an geekdom wide pressure, the negative reaction to this KS, followed by the "fake gamer girls" controversy
Did you see the strip PA did on the latter? Good stuff.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Jumping back on topic, this really is becoming an geekdom wide pressure, the negative reaction to this KS, followed by the "fake gamer girls" controversy
Did you see the strip PA did on the latter? Good stuff.
Hah! I hadn't seen that actually, that's pretty much my position on the whole situation neatly summed up into two panels.
@LoH, it's only an issue when it is intentionally abused constantly. Such as in Nintendo games.
Ignoring that pretty much half of Nintendo's marketing and business model relies on nostalgia from the first generation of gaming. They're not abusing women they're abusing fond childhood memories.
I didn't say they were abusing women, I said they were abusing a trope.
Much longer discussion on the subject. NSFW uncensored language
About half the comments on that page are mocking her. I like it already The other half are just plain low class which ruins the moment though.
On topic, I fail to see how abusing a trope is relevant to anything except a lack of originality in writing narrative (aka being a one trick pony). Have you read Dean Koontz lately? Or Tom Clancy? Or most authors, film makers, and game designers? They always use the same tropes. Over and over and over again. Hell look at Bioware. They just took KotOR's plot and recycled it into Mass Effect 1 (Not to mention how nearly every Bioware game contains the Carth).
The argument that women fall into cliched roles doesn't really hold water with me. The same is true of male characters, especially for minorities (including fantasy expy races).
The sexualization of female characters is extremely disturbing though.
Opposing viewpoint. Her dissertation is lol worthy.
On topic, I fail to see how abusing a trope is relevant to anything except a lack of originality in writing narrative (aka being a one trick pony). Have you read Dean Koontz lately? Or Tom Clancy? Or most authors, film makers, and game designers? They always use the same tropes. Over and over and over again. Hell look at Bioware. They just took KotOR's plot and recycled it into Mass Effect 1 (Not to mention how nearly every Bioware game contains the Carth).
Because this particular trope constantly objectifies women and the damsels in distress often have similarities to the Madonna-Whore complex in that they are not real characters, but two dimensional ideals.
Edit: Varying the characters goes a long way in using the trope. Bioware can get away with DiD because both examples I gave earlier go on to become major players in the game that contribute greatly to your party. They are both over sexualized though.
I'm a shovanist and I think its sexist that we have a man on an advert that has no top on at all!! When a WOMAN!!! Wears a bra!!! RAEG ARGHAGHAGAHAHHAHAH
Just for the humour impaired, that was a joke....
Ok jokes aside the main thing I dislike about this video is the girl power boll... Can't say that...
In fairness there is sexism on both sides. For women it's a touch more important in terms of jobs. For men it's more a case of we don't really care since it doesn't affect us all that much...
Amaya wrote: The sexualization of female characters is extremely disturbing though.
Yeah. Because all men are this sexy:
This is where the complaint tends to fall on its face. Women aren't the only ones presented in physically appealing ways in video games. The men are too. The difference is that there aren't any masculinists around to decry this depiction of men as unfair, objectified, or wrong or whatever. Why? because its a stupid complaint.
No one wants to play a video game where this is the female lead:
She only gets to be a supporting character at best. Lets face it, society likes physically attractive people presented in physically attractive ways. Men and women.
Opposing viewpoint. Her dissertation is lol worthy.
The sad part. He made a better video and he probably wasn't paid a penny.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because this particular trope constantly objectifies women and the damsels in distress often have similarities to the Madonna-Whore complex in that they are not real characters, but two dimensional ideals.
Except that it doesn't. In Halo Combat Evolved, Cortanna suffers a DiD moment when she is captured by Guilty Spark, and the Chief is forced to fight to get her back. Does this make Cortanna not a real character, two dimensional, and weak? She's pretty much the icon of the Halo series, and probably as responsible for saving the world as the male lead since he can't really do much of anything without her helping him. Damsel in distress doesn't objectify women anymore than dude in distress objectifies men. These things are very vague tropes that can be used a billion different ways. You can even invert the trope at the same time you invoke it if you write it that way. The complaint here isn't a trope that objectifies women, its low quality writing that relegated female characters to being plot devices because the plots were irrelevant and there was no need to make those characters anything more than what they were.
Video games by and large have gakky stories the quality of which a five year old could probably equal, especially in first gen games when there wasn't time or data space to spend on an elaborate story and a random story was just thrown in as a context excuse most of the time for the game's actions and that bandwagoning being what it is 'Save the Princess' became a cliche throughout the 80's into the late 90's before everyone got tired of it which has happened a billion other times with nearly every other trope in existance. Except for Nintendo who revels in nostalgia and continues to use the trope because its 'classic.'
Edit: Varying the characters goes a long way in using the trope. Bioware can get away with DiD because both examples I gave earlier go on to become major players in the game that contribute greatly to your party.
Bioware got away with it because their use of DiD wasn't an excuse plot where the damsel is an irrelevant issue that needs no characterization or even a personality quirk to advance the story. Their mere presence is enough to facilitate Mario's rampage of stomping and coin collecting and mushroom eating.
They are both over sexualized though.
Really? Liara sure cause there's that whole sex scene and all and the Asari's sexuality comes up a lot in the series, but Bastilla?
I mean damn. that's one of the most conservative outfits on a female lead ever! And she's practically out of the 1950's in her mentality.
Formosa wrote: I stopped at "woman are not weaker, its a myth"... Actually sweetheart it's a biological fact, woman are as smart as men etc.
But they are weaker...
And "woman dont need to be protected by.men"
Ok thats bull too, because men are stronger, woman do need to be protected by men, from other less scrupulous men, if that suddenly stopped happening.. Well bad stuff happens in those countries.
I dislike feminists...
Considering how thin I am, I know a lot of women who are stronger than I am.
And then there's "The Amazon" who works out at the gym near me. I'd like to see any man try to protect her. Just because it's not as common for a woman to be as physically powerful as a man, doesn't mean it's impossible. What's more, who said physical strength was the only measure of power a character could have? What about using things other than basic strength to solve challenges and defeat enemies?
Geez. I read the posts in the thread before I watched the video (I'm video-averse) and from them I expected some crazed radical feminist diatribe that only made sense in radfem context, but instead I found... a pretty matter of fact recounting of the history of a bunch of mostly-Nintendo characters. What the heck, guys.
It was interesting to watch, even if it didn't say anything especially groundbreaking. Maybe I'll see part two one day!
Actually LOH there's a fair counter that men in games aren't there as sex objects for women, but rather as power fantasies for men. Just something to consider.
Mhm, I think the main reason this just bored me to tears is that I don't even play any of the games that have this.
Games that I played with female lead or support characters...
Gears of War? Where they kick even more arse then the men?
Aaand... Halo? Where Cortana is the only reason MC survived the first few hours after Reach got owned? And the only reason he won... anything really, he would've lost almost every time without her there helping him out (don't forget that she also boosts his reflexes and coginitive power just by being integrated in the armor).
Then theres.... Yep... can't think of anything. To be fair, I don't play that many character driven games in the first place. And if they are, mostly RPG's, where more often then not, you can play a lead female regardless. (hell, female characters in fallout 1 and 2 are statistically better because the only gameplay effect they have is that men have weaker groins ).
And the Command and conquer videos don't count IMO because those things are making fun of themselves in the first place.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually LOH there's a fair counter that men in games aren't there as sex objects for women, but rather as power fantasies for men. Just something to consider.
And I get that. I'm one of the first people to stand up and ask why every single piece of media has to have some romantic sub-plot tacked onto it as if the developer just wanted to have someone around who can do the do with the main character even if it never actually happens. My issue is that most of the time complaints directed at female characters can often be equally applied to male characters. Most video game characters are designed to be sexually appealing, most of them are shallow and two dimensional, and most of them are incompetent beyond all reason and need the player character to show up to save the day. That most player characters happen to be men is just the side effect of demographic marketing, where even if women are a rising demographic in the industry the industry itself is still largely targeted at a male audience because they're still the primary audience for larger AAA games. What did Bungie do when they realized in Halo 3 that women were making up nearly a quarter of the online player base? They added the option to be a female Spartan in Halo: Reach.
Want more women in video games? Get all your friends off Farmville and get them to start playing Halo and Call of Duty (maybe not Call of Duty...)
I mean, hell why are we complaining about Peach being two dimensional? When's the last time Mario showed any personality? There's plenty to complain about in video game stories but that women are being disenfranchised is probably near the bottom of the list for me.
LordofHats wrote:My issue is that most of the time complaints directed at female characters can often be equally applied to male characters.
Context is important. In games, female characters are often designed to cater to the male audience. Male characters are designed to cater to ... the male audience.
There's no denying that this trend is shifting ever so slowly, but you can't really deny that it exists. And when something caters to a specific target audience, why should it regard that as a negative thing and something to complain about?
Soladrin wrote:Aaand... Halo? Where Cortana is the only reason MC survived the first few hours after Reach got owned? And the only reason he won... anything really, he would've lost almost every time without her there helping him out (don't forget that she also boosts his reflexes and coginitive power just by being integrated in the armor).
You're picking a weird example.
And really, being a "useful sidekick" doesn't necessarily make a "powerful character".
Boosting reflexes of the male who basically owns her is about as empowering as making sandwiches.
Formosa wrote: I stopped at "woman are not weaker, its a myth"... Actually sweetheart it's a biological fact, woman are as smart as men etc.
But they are weaker...
And "woman dont need to be protected by.men"
Ok thats bull too, because men are stronger, woman do need to be protected by men, from other less scrupulous men, if that suddenly stopped happening.. Well bad stuff happens in those countries.
I dislike feminists...
Considering how thin I am, I know a lot of women who are stronger than I am.
And then there's "The Amazon" who works out at the gym near me. I'd like to see any man try to protect her. Just because it's not as common for a woman to be as physically powerful as a man, doesn't mean it's impossible. What's more, who said physical strength was the only measure of power a character could have? What about using things other than basic strength to solve challenges and defeat enemies?
I agree on one point, physical power and power in.General are not the same thing.
Woman are not as strong as men, A woman may be stronger than A man, this is an exception thats proves the rule, no matter how hard q woman trains she will never be as physically strong as a man who also trains to his peak, mass dictates this, as does evolution.
Now dont.get this.mixed up with calling woman weak, they are not, they are stronger in other areas.
Now go look at all those hell hole countries where rape and murder are everyday kind of things and tell me that woman dont need protection,
Formosa wrote:Now go look at all those hell hole countries where rape and murder are everyday kind of things and tell me that woman dont need protection
You need to realise that this is, to a large degree, also a cultural issue. When girls grow up being instilled with the belief that they are supposed to be weak and defer to men, then this is likely to happen when they've grown up. In the case of Africa, this is in part due to the influence of European colonial powers and religious teachings, but it has not always been that way.
And I believe that the author was referring to strength in character rather than just physical strength. You can be the strongest human around, but when you lack bravery it will do you no good. Conversely, when you are brave enough, you can find ways to defend yourself against an opponent who is physically stronger. In fact, is this not a central theme to the classic hero tale? Is it not that the dragon is stronger than the knight, yet is still slain in the end?
What I think this thread needs, is a picture of the Jedi Exile meeting Atton Rand for the first time...
Also, if I remember my KOTORI correctly, Bastila was never actually a damsel in distress... She was just waiting to see who would show up, then broke out the cell herself.
On top of that, "men" and "women" aren't monolithic groups, they're made up of individual people. Unless the contention is that all men are stronger than all women, it's not really relevant that some men are physically stronger than some women. What matters is the individual.
LordofHats wrote:My issue is that most of the time complaints directed at female characters can often be equally applied to male characters.
Context is important. In games, female characters are often designed to cater to the male audience. Male characters are designed to cater to ... the male audience.
There's no denying that this trend is shifting ever so slowly, but you can't really deny that it exists. And when something caters to a specific target audience, why should it regard that as a negative thing and something to complain about?
Soladrin wrote:Aaand... Halo? Where Cortana is the only reason MC survived the first few hours after Reach got owned? And the only reason he won... anything really, he would've lost almost every time without her there helping him out (don't forget that she also boosts his reflexes and coginitive power just by being integrated in the armor).
You're picking a weird example.
And really, being a "useful sidekick" doesn't necessarily make a "powerful character".
Boosting reflexes of the male who basically owns her is about as empowering as making sandwiches.
I guess it helps a lot if you read the books. In many ways she's more powerful and did more important things then Master-chief himself did. For instance, after MC infiltrates a Covenant flag ship she hacks it, takes full control, flushes all atmosphere killing every covvy on it, then reprograms all the plasma weapons on it making them about a hundred times as effective and takes a fleet using that. Theres many more things like this. She could very well have been the main character if it wasn't a straight up FPS.
Also, I'd like to add that the halo 4 cortana actually has much more natural looking breasts and curves instead of the model figure the previous ones we're going for.
I'll watch it later.
By later I mean when comments and ratings are enabled.
If you are going to silence everyone who would have an opinion about your video, then your video isn't worth my time.
Amaya wrote: The argument that women fall into cliched roles doesn't really hold water with me. The same is true of male characters, especially for minorities (including fantasy expy races).
The sexualization of female characters is extremely disturbing though.
Opposing viewpoint. Her dissertation is lol worthy.
Her dissertation reminds me of a module that was taught when I went to university. It was very similar and the unspoken caveat was that you disagreed with the professor at the risk of failing the class. No dissent was tolerated, and any line of argument used to counter the professor's point of view was simply not allowed and ignored.
Nice find on the rebuttal video, I thought that was actually a lot more interesting than Part 1 of her series but we'll see what the others bring to the table. I agree that her content is not well presented, in her DiD video much of what she said was done so in layperson's terms (as she said was her goal), yet she still used more technical terms to remind the audience of her credentials.
I have to say though that I am in no way surprised that she moderates her youtube channel. Youtube comments are one of the cesspools of the internet so its hard to tell if she is framing the debate to suit her, or getting rid of the trolls. I'd hope she isn't doing what many others do and professing freedom of speech and expression.....so long as it complies with her world view.
She did play all the people trolling her online nicely though to help fund her kickstarter. Out of curiosity has any of her backers asked how to account for how she plans to spend the extra money from the kickstarter?
Krellnus wrote: I'll watch it later.
By later I mean when comments and ratings are enabled.
If you are going to silence everyone who would have an opinion about your video, then your video isn't worth my time.
That's a fair criticism actually, really stifles discussion, though considering the sheer amount of harassment the video's creator caught during the KS campaign it's not exactly surprising.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That's a fair criticism actually, really stifles discussion, though considering the sheer amount of harassment the video's creator caught during the KS campaign it's not exactly surprising.
At the very least she should have some sort of published policy concerning the comments posted on her channel and what some of the grounds are for removing comments etc. it wouldn't kill her to respond to the polite comments either. If she doesn't deal with moderate voices she should not be surprised when all she hear are extremists. Than again this might suit her, ignore the sensible comments until they are frustrated and when they post in frustration use that as a pretext for ignoring what they said all along ("See I told you they're all like that")
Do you think it's a teensy bit unreasonable to criticise her for not opening herself up to abuse in comments and bombing the rating of the video just for the topic? I'm having a hard time seeing how there'd be a productive "discussion" in the youtube comments.
Soladrin wrote: I guess it helps a lot if you read the books. In many ways she's more powerful and did more important things then Master-chief himself did. For instance, after MC infiltrates a Covenant flag ship she hacks it, takes full control, flushes all atmosphere killing every covvy on it, then reprograms all the plasma weapons on it making them about a hundred times as effective and takes a fleet using that. Theres many more things like this. She could very well have been the main character if it wasn't a straight up FPS.
You can see this in the games as well. While she is effectively the Robin to Master Chief's Batman, in Halo Combat Evolved, and Halo 4, the Master Chief would have been completely incapable of saving the day without Cortana's help. She's not just in the game as a token character as female characters often are, she's really an integral part of the story.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Do you think it's a teensy bit unreasonable to criticise her for not opening herself up to abuse in comments and bombing the rating of the video just for the topic? I'm having a hard time seeing how there'd be a productive "discussion" in the youtube comments.
I think it is unreasonable for her to refuse to deal with dissenting viewpoints that are expressed in a constructive and mature manner, I do not believe that she should ignore someone simply because (s)he has an opposing perspective. I do not think that she should be subject to abusive or insulting comments. That is why I think that she should have some sort of standard for comments posted, so that way people can better see the rationale for what is and is not permitted. Without that, and what was highlighted in the second rebuttal video, she is leaving herself wide open to accusations that she is distorting the debate to shore up her position and refusing to hear those who disagree with her, which is academically dishonest at best.
I will state though that on reflection I'm not impressed with what she has to say so far. All she is doing is echoing what others have said before, but she is doing it on youtube to try and get her name established. I haven't seen anything of hers that suggests a way forward, or how things can be changed.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Do you think it's a teensy bit unreasonable to criticise her for not opening herself up to abuse in comments and bombing the rating of the video just for the topic? I'm having a hard time seeing how there'd be a productive "discussion" in the youtube comments.
I think it is unreasonable for her to refuse to deal with dissenting viewpoints that are expressed in a constructive and mature manner, I do not believe that she should ignore someone simply because (s)he has an opposing perspective. I do not think that she should be subject to abusive or insulting comments. That is why I think that she should have some sort of standard for comments posted, so that way people can better see the rationale for what is and is not permitted. Without that, and what was highlighted in the second rebuttal video, she is leaving herself wide open to accusations that she is distorting the debate to shore up her position and refusing to hear those who disagree with her, which is academically dishonest at best.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Do you think it's a teensy bit unreasonable to criticise her for not opening herself up to abuse in comments and bombing the rating of the video just for the topic? I'm having a hard time seeing how there'd be a productive "discussion" in the youtube comments.
Considering the absolutely horrific and incredibly stupid comments she was subject to just for starting the kickstarter for this project, I'm not at all surprised, and I don't blame her. The pure moronic vitrol she had to wade through just to get the project off the ground was awful, especially since many of the points she presents are valid, or at least worthy of proper discussion. There's certainly room for some intelligent discussion over this topic, and it's certainly important, as women become a more and more important demographic to videogames (around 40% right now, according to the ESA).
Personally, I consider myself an egalitarian, but in a similar vein, I'm also a feminist. And I feel that she's being crucified for all the wrong reasons. There's definitely room for discussion, and I would hope there's a decent channel for that, but the youtube comments section just is not that.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Do you think it's a teensy bit unreasonable to criticise her for not opening herself up to abuse in comments and bombing the rating of the video just for the topic? I'm having a hard time seeing how there'd be a productive "discussion" in the youtube comments.
Considering the absolutely horrific and incredibly stupid comments she was subject to just for starting the kickstarter for this project, I'm not at all surprised, and I don't blame her. The pure moronic vitrol she had to wade through just to get the project off the ground was awful, especially since many of the points she presents are valid, or at least worthy of proper discussion. There's certainly room for some intelligent discussion over this topic, and it's certainly important, as women become a more and more important demographic to videogames (around 40% right now, according to the ESA).
Personally, I consider myself an egalitarian, but in a similar vein, I'm also a feminist. And I feel that she's being crucified for all the wrong reasons. There's definitely room for discussion, and I would hope there's a decent channel for that, but the youtube comments section just is not that.
That's an unfortunate assossiciation fallacy though (on the internets part), just because a lot of "feminists" on tumblr are rather inane with their whole "lets make the world a matriarchy" (a silly idea to begin with, if anything the world should be a meritocracy) doesn't mean they all are, meaning there are probably a few diamonds in the rough, so to speak, that get the stupid and horrific comments for shock value because, "hey they are a feminist on tumblr right?"
It's actually kind of funny, in a way. I told my roomate/good friend that I was a feminist, and he looked upon that in a negative way.
The way we interpret "feminist" is kind of broken. Simply put, as a feminist, I feel that women should be open to the same rights, opportunities, and obligations as any man. I think that a lot of people in this current era would not have a problem agreeing with that. But for some reason, "feminist" becomes a dirty word.
Fafnir wrote: The way we interpret "feminist" is kind of broken.
Honestly. That's probably because of people like Anita Sarkeesian. Go watch some of her other stuff. She exemplifies the stereotype:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I like how not having comments on Youtube is akin to being a fascist that ignores dissension and avoids debate.
Apparently the youtube comment area is now a reasonable, scholastic discussion board. I must have slipped into the Mirror Mirror universe.
As was pointed out in the rebuttal it's not that she blocked it that's the problem. It's that she blocked all her videos but one, the one advertising her kickstarter proposal, so that all attention would be focused on that one video rocking it to the top YouTube's listings. The problem is that she's opportunist. But then who isn't?
I think one of the problems with that, both perceived and real, is how we've seen sexuality in society as dichotomous.
With race, once we came to realize that it really doesn't have much effect on the value of a person, the whole idea between the differentiation of race kind of fell apart, at least in most media (we're not perfect, but generally, the idea is that a person of any ethnicity should be treated as any other).
With men and women, yes, there are some markable differences. And they're easily more engrained into us than racial differences. Granted, at least from the people I've met.
Sure, not all feminists will agree, and many won't stand for the same things, but part of that comes from the fact that the differentiation between sex and gender is so very complex to begin with. Especially with the way sex, gender, and heteronormativity has been engrained into the culture we currently live in.
LordofHats wrote: As was pointed out in the rebuttal it's not that she blocked it that's the problem. It's that she blocked all her videos but one, the one advertising her kickstarter proposal, so that all attention would be focused on that one video rocking it to the top YouTube's listings. The problem is that she's opportunist. But then who isn't?
Wow that is an incredibly poor and self serving interpretation of events.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Do you think it's a teensy bit unreasonable to criticise her for not opening herself up to abuse in comments and bombing the rating of the video just for the topic? I'm having a hard time seeing how there'd be a productive "discussion" in the youtube comments.
I think it is unreasonable for her to refuse to deal with dissenting viewpoints that are expressed in a constructive and mature manner, I do not believe that she should ignore someone simply because (s)he has an opposing perspective. I do not think that she should be subject to abusive or insulting comments. That is why I think that she should have some sort of standard for comments posted, so that way people can better see the rationale for what is and is not permitted. Without that, and what was highlighted in the second rebuttal video, she is leaving herself wide open to accusations that she is distorting the debate to shore up her position and refusing to hear those who disagree with her, which is academically dishonest at best.
I will state though that on reflection I'm not impressed with what she has to say so far. All she is doing is echoing what others have said before, but she is doing it on youtube to try and get her name established. I haven't seen anything of hers that suggests a way forward, or how things can be changed.
Okay. I don't see how disabling comments and rating is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints" though. It seems entirely rational to me to not want to spend 40 hours a day deleting abuse from your youtube comments.
Fafnir wrote: The way we interpret "feminist" is kind of broken.
Honestly. That's probably because of people like Anita Sarkeesian.
It's probably because of people fixating on them. I won't speculate on why people fixate on them, but they're - as suggested by the fact that you never seem to actually meet these people, just hear about them - incredibly rare to the point of nearly being mythical.
Either way, it would probably help to discuss what she actually says in the video instead of who she is.
Ahtman wrote: I like how not having comments on Youtube is akin to being a fascist that ignores dissension and avoids debate.
Apparently the youtube comment area is now a reasonable, scholastic discussion board. I must have slipped into the Mirror Mirror universe.
I don't think anyone said that youtube was reasonable, in fact I'm pretty certain that I described youtube as 'one of the cesspools of the internet". That being said, if someone posts a comment that is non-confrontational and politely disagrees I do not think that person's comment or question should be ignored. If you are willfully depriving legitimate questions and concerns because it doesn't suit your position then the question must be asked, do you really have the courage of your convictions? Is it so fragile that it cannot stand to be tested?
That is one of the reasons why I believe if she was seriously interested in open and honest debate under the videos were comments have been enabled, and changing how women are portrayed in video games, that she should at least have some policy for the youtube community to state what is and is not tolerated. Otherwise, as the rebuttals point out, she can very easily open herself to accusations of deliberate inconsistency in how she treats comments, even from people who have helped fund her project. Whether she likes it or not she has established herself as a public figure and she must hold herself to a reasonable standard of conduct.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Whether she likes it or not she has established herself as a public figure and she must hold herself to a reasonable standard of conduct.
Not that I'm disagreeing with the intention of your point. But that's sounding like a classic paradox to me!
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Okay. I don't see how disabling comments and rating is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints" though. It seems entirely rational to me to not want to spend 40 hours a day deleting abuse from your youtube comments.
You don't understand how not allowing an opposing point of view on your work is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints"? I thought it was pretty clear. I'm not saying that she should be subject to abuse, I have been pretty clear on that I thought, nor should she publish abusive, nasty or trolling comments. However if someone is posting a genuine, well thought out counterpoint and she refuses to engage with that person then she is not engaging with that person or what their argument is.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Whether she likes it or not she has established herself as a public figure and she must hold herself to a reasonable standard of conduct.
Not that I'm disagreeing with the intention of your point. But that's sounding like a classic paradox to me!
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but how so? She is someone pursuing an academic and activist career in a public manner. Her conduct and comments will be used to judge her, her arguments and her credibility for possibly the length of her career.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Okay. I don't see how disabling comments and rating is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints" though. It seems entirely rational to me to not want to spend 40 hours a day deleting abuse from your youtube comments.
You don't understand how not allowing an opposing point of view on your work is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints"? I thought it was pretty clear. I'm not saying that she should be subject to abuse, I have been pretty clear on that I thought, nor should she publish abusive, nasty or trolling comments. However if someone is posting a genuine, well thought out counterpoint and she refuses to engage with that person then she is not engaging with that person or what their argument is.
What I don't understand is why youtube comments are required to be the venue for this opposing point of view. There's a whole Internet out there and she isn't preventing anyone from posting on any of it. She can even choose to reply using her youtube channel and include links to the dissenting opinion in question if she wants to. Filtering through abusive youtube comments potentially takes a large amount of time, not to mention emotional energy. It is not free.
That said, I didn't really see a lot in the video to disagree with anyway. It seemed like a pretty factual account of things - not much of a debate topic.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: What I don't understand is why youtube comments are required to be the venue for this opposing point of view. There's a whole Internet out there and she isn't preventing anyone from posting on any of it. She can even choose to reply using her youtube channel and include links to the dissenting opinion in question if she wants to. Filtering through abusive youtube comments potentially takes a large amount of time, not to mention emotional energy. It is not free.
That said, I didn't really see a lot in the video to disagree with anyway. It seemed like a pretty factual account of things - not much of a debate topic.
Just because you do not see anything to debate does not mean that others share your perspective.
Youtube comments are the most viable venue for opposing points of view because she publishes her videos there, it is a central hub for people to exchange ideas on her videos. If someone posts an article on, for example, a news site were comments are enabled should people take their discussions elsewhere? Forcing people to take their discussions elsewhere because they disagree with someone fractures the debate.
She has little problem in sifting through comments to enable comments supportive of her, or finding abusive comments to publish to garner support during her kickstarter campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: Public figures.... Reasonable standard of conduct....
This thread barely took less than ten posts to devolve in to whining about how "feminism sucks" by people who have no goddamned clue what feminism actually is. Not that I expected any better.
The video was interesting, but I kind of expected more out of a video which was funded by actual money instead of just time and effort.
I don't know much about youtube, but would 'video responses' still be allowed to be attached? Or does the original poster need to agree to them.
From what I understand according to the videos earlier in the thread I do not believe that any response can be published to the original video without Anita Sarkeesian's permission.
While I don't agree with her strict control of published comments (personally I prefer free speech even when it's unpleasant, better to shame the donkey caves), given the level of blind, irrational hate in this thread alone-- never mind on Kickstarter or Youtube-- I can hardly blame her for it. The offensive comments will only make the discussion die.
So freedom of speech should only apply when people agree with what is being said? I'm not saying that she should publish or concern herself with nasty comments. What I am saying is that she has no problem going through and publishing and responding to comments that favour her, while ignoring those comments that disagree with her no matter how well written and polite they may be.
What are your feelings on the fact that she had no issue trawling through offensive comments and publishing them on multiple venues when she had a direct financial interest, then when she got the money she clamped down?
Melissia wrote:While I don't agree with her strict control of published comments (personally I prefer free speech even when it's unpleasant, better to shame the donkey caves), given the level of blind, irrational hate in this thread alone-- never mind on Kickstarter or Youtube-- I can hardly blame her for it. The offensive comments will only make the discussion die.
This. From what I've seen of the internet's reaction to the initial kickstarter, nothing good could have possibly come out of it.
The idea that some sort of "policy of standards" would have prevented abusive comments and sexist jokes to flood the comments section and detract from the video's actual content is naive at best, a desperate attack on the creator's assumed intentions and the video's validity at worst. YouTube doesn't work that way, and I think that, actually, everyone here knows this.
From how I see it, the video was created to raise awareness and to inform, not as a platform for debate. That will happen elsewhere. I'm fairly sure the author will still receive a load of flak or even threats for posting this without an open comments section on YT.
This thread, too, will not be heading in a good way, judging from some of the previous comments. But that isn't exactly surprising, given the overlap between dakka/40k and "the internet".
Dreadclaw69 wrote:What I am saying is that she has no problem going through and publishing and responding to comments that favour her, while ignoring those comments that disagree with her no matter how well written and polite they may be.
"Well written and polite" debate happens elsewhere. The goal of the campaign is to raise awareness, as the "well written and polite" discussions have been going on for years by now. Hardliners debating hardliners until someone gets tired and leaves serve no-one. You may as well organise a talkshow with the Pope and Dawkins and see what good that'll do for the relationship between christians and atheists.
Unfortunately, things such as these are entirely a matter of perception, and either you "feel" that something is wrong and needs improvement, or you don't. That's it.
Also, the comments for this video are closed entirely. YT also offers an option for having comments require authorisation by a video's creator before they appear, but she did not make use of it.
Surely there's got to be the argument though that this could be doing more harm than good? If people agreeing with the principle of it all are actually being actively put off?
How so? Even assuming that some people truly agreeing with the principle come away with a negative impression of this video, would they suddenly change their mind on the whole issue?
The only way I could see it doing more harm than good is that it could serve as rage ammunition for those people ranting on about "feminazis" ... but even then, they would have done so anyways, and the controversy would only serve to draw in more attention.
Sometimes you gotta yell to make someone notice. Coincidentally, Germany currently sees a lot of furore regarding sexism in politics, and there, just like in reaction to the situation in video games, a lot of people stood up and complained that it's all just a load of hot air and not worth talking about.
And personally, I think that such defensive reactions only make it even more worth talking about.
The only way I could see it doing more harm than good is that it could serve as rage ammunition for those people ranting on about "feminazis" ... but even then, they would have done so anyways, and the controversy would only serve to draw in more attention.
They already take every chance they can to do that anyway. You can see it on this very forum, time and time again.
Oh god, Feminist frequency. I watched it once, this women is the sterotypical feminist. Throughout her video she gave no real insight that no one didnt actually already know(the only new thing i learned what that donkey kong was supposed to be a pop-eye game) She gave no insights into various thing(She brought up the monkey thing, but no one mentioned how it cam to be)
I'ts intriguing, but she doesnt put anything new into the discussion.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So freedom of speech should only apply when people agree with what is being said?
Ahem.
Melissia wrote: I don't agree with her strict control of published comments
I read that, and then the justification that you gave after it, I was trying to clarify your position. So do you agree with what she did in sifting through comments to find the nastiest ones that she could publish when it would further her financial interests?
Lynata wrote: []This. From what I've seen of the internet's reaction to the initial kickstarter, nothing good could have possibly come out of it.
The idea that some sort of "policy of standards" would have prevented abusive comments and sexist jokes to flood the comments section and detract from the video's actual content is naive at best, a desperate attack on the creator's assumed intentions and the video's validity at worst. YouTube doesn't work that way, and I think that, actually, everyone here knows this.
From how I see it, the video was created to raise awareness and to inform, not as a platform for debate. That will happen elsewhere. I'm fairly sure the author will still receive a load of flak or even threats for posting this without an open comments section on YT.
I don't use youtube in any great way, and don't have an account with them.
I'm not saying that a policy of any sort would have prevented offensive comments. What I am saying is that it would give the author more credibility to have a framework that she can point to as to why comments that were not offensive were not published. Otherwise she is leaving herself open to the accusation (as mentioned in a rebuttal video earlier in the thread) that she is only publishing comments favourable to her.
Can I ask your thoughts on her not entertaining comments with an opposing view (not offensive comments) but having no problem sifting through vile comments to publish them when she has a financial interest?
Lynata wrote: "Well written and polite" debate happens elsewhere. The goal of the campaign is to raise awareness, as the "well written and polite" discussions have been going on for years by now. Hardliners debating hardliners until someone gets tired and leaves serve no-one. You may as well organise a talkshow with the Pope and Dawkins and see what good that'll do for the relationship between christians and atheists.
Unfortunately, things such as these are entirely a matter of perception, and either you "feel" that something is wrong and needs improvement, or you don't. That's it.
Also, the comments for this video are closed entirely. YT also offers an option for having comments require authorisation by a video's creator before they appear, but she did not make use of it.
So rather than provide a forum for people to discuss what she has said in a mature manner people should go elsewhere? By that logic would it be permissible, or even sensible, for someone to start a thread on this site and then insist that any discussion take place on other sites?
If she is raising awareness she is doing it by repeating what others have said, but better, in front of a camera and with the academic language diluted except when it suits her to establish her credentials. If the well written and polite discussions have been going on for years does that mean they are at a dead end and the only way if to become more extreme?
"things such as these are entirely a matter of perception, and either you "feel" that something is wrong and needs improvement, or you don't. That's it." - maybe I'm missing something, but are you saying that there is no evidence of sexism in gaming, that it can only be divined by a feeling?
LordofHats wrote: That's because as a trope Damsel in Distress is really just a plot point. It can appear almost anywhere in the plot an author wants it to be, and ultimately what it means is quite varied. Equating all damsels in distress to disempowered objects to be won shows a remarkable lack of experience. I can think of at last a half dozen female characters off the top of my head that had DoD moments, and none of them are by any means weak characters in need of big strong men to protect them 24.7,
Not to mention that in the KOTOR games you can play as a woman, rescuing a woman, and you have at least 2 other women in your group who don't require rescuing and are both very strong capable characters on their own.
It's probably because of people fixating on them. I won't speculate on why people fixate on them, but they're - as suggested by the fact that you never seem to actually meet these people, just hear about them - incredibly rare to the point of nearly being mythical.
For the same reason Al Sharpton and Sarah Palin still end up in the news. Because they want attention and they know how to get it. Find the dumbest most inane comment possible that some people will by into and scream it at the top of your lungs. Profit. Same thing happens to Christians, Democrats, Republicans, and pretty much anyone. Modern media. Focusing all the attention on the loudest and the dumbest elements of modern society.
Either way, it would probably help to discuss what she actually says in the video instead of who she is.
Discuss what? She points out and derides a now mostly dead trend in games that is only continued on by Nintendo for the sake of being nostalgic. There's not that much to be discussed after pointing out she really doesn't have a point.
I'm fairly sure the author will still receive a load of flak or even threats for posting this without an open comments section on YT.
From what I can tell she's catching more flak for taking money to make the video than anything (around the internet that is). There are already some memes popping up about it. Setting aside how much I really don't like this person, from a simple marketing stand point 'Damsel in Distress' may not have been the best subject for her to kick off her series. Something more relevant today would likely have yielded better results. The games she's talking about are either to distant in the past for most to care, or sacred cows one may never insult. Cause their sacred.
Melissia wrote: One can disagree with someone but still empathize strongly with why they did what they did.
So do you agree with what she did in sifting through comments to find the nastiest ones that she could publish when it would further her financial interests?
... being a feminist and not keeping her mouth shut.
The gaming culture, 40k included, is quite hostile to women. Women are three times more likely to be insulted or harassed than men in first person shooters, [url=]http://www.themarysue.com/academic-study-game-harassment/for example[/url]. I've gotten death threats for saying "I wish this game let me play as a woman" before, and while it's just anecdotal evidence, still, from my experience, gaming communities as a general whole, from FPS games to RTS to MMOs, are much less likely to attack me if I use an androgynous or masculine username than when I use a feminine one.
I've answered your question three times now. No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer is STILL right there in front of you, and it's not changing.
My own personal perspective is that, to quote CP Scott, "The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: I've answered your question three times now. No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer is STILL right there in front of you, and it's not changing.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to provoke a hostile reaction. I get that you value free speech but are prepared to put limits on it. But I haven't seen an answer to whether you think she was justified in ignoring polite dissenting voices, but will publish vile comments when it suits her financially. If I've missed it then I apologise.
(edited to update quote)
Melissia wrote: The same exact post I have quoted to you three times now.
Melissia wrote: I don't agree with her strict control of published comments
How the feth is this confusing?
Ok, I get you now. I'm sorry. I thought that you were saying that in response to the freedom of speech issue I was raising, not about her financial interest issue. Sorry for the confusion.
Melissia wrote: The gaming culture, 40k included, is quite hostile to women.
Simply taking that as true, Anita Sarkeesian is not the person anyone should be looking to for advancing feminism. She's kind of an idiot. The video in the OP seems to be her least opinionated and highest quality work which really isn't saying much because it's not really worth the time it takes to watch. She's catching flak because she fits the mold of the stereotypical femnazi and now she's been thrown into the viral level of popularity cause she got paid $150000 to basically keep being that stereotype.
Just like numerous, NUMEROUS other women who have spoken out and gotten threats like "I hope you get raped to death", even on issues completely unrelated to feminism.
I don't agree with her more extreme views, but the gaming community is quite gakky when it comes to its treatment of women and I don't see any reason why I should interpret the feedback here as anything more than an extension of this.
Melissia wrote: I WAS saying it in response to the freedom of speech issue.
How the hell could I have said "I don't agree with her actions" any clearer?
Honestly, because when I asked you about the financial part you quoted what I had posted about the freedom of speech part. I didn't realise that you were saying that to respond to the financial part of my posts also.
The funny part is that this is pretty much her reaction to all criticism (that the only reason anyone could ever disagree with her is because she's a woman) which really just isn't endearing at all.
Melissia wrote: Just like numerous, NUMEROUS other women who have spoken out and gotten threats like "I hope you get raped to death", even on issues completely unrelated to feminism.
I don't agree with her more extreme views, but the gaming community is quite gakky when it comes to its treatment of women.
And conduct like that towards her, or any other woman, is completely disgusting, and should not be tolerated.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And conduct like that towards her, or any other woman, is completely disgusting, and should not be tolerated.
And yet it is tolerated, because people justify those actions.
LordofHats wrote: (that the only reason anyone could ever disagree with her is because she's a woman)
I'm not saying that at all, and it is disingenuous of you to insinuate that I am.
I am making a statement that she is treated far more harshly by the internet crowd because she is a woman, which is not only true, but a also scientifically documented fact. I am not condemning people for disagreeing with her.
Melissia wrote: I'm not saying that at all, and it is disingenuous of you to insinuate that I am.
Seeing as I have continually pointed out that the reason she catches this hate has everything to do with her behavior not her gender, and you continually cut that out and say it's because she's a woman, yes. That's exactly what you are saying.
EDIT: I mean your really going to argue that I, as a guy, can go a make a video saying the exact same thing shy says and people won't hate on me? That doesn't make any sense (well honestly if I'm a guy and I say the same things she does I'll probably get a lot more hate because then all the people who think I'm being a panzy will jump in).
Melissia wrote: And yet it is tolerated, because people justify those actions.
Sadly people seem to be able to justify some pretty reprehensible things, especially from the comfortable anonymity of the internet. I'd like to think that people like that are in the minority (albeit a disproportionately vocal minority)
LordofHats wrote: I have continually pointed out that the reason she catches this hate has everything to do with her behavior not her gender
And I have pointed out that you are wrong.
Her being a woman really IS the reason she catches so much flak on the subject. Gamers, or even nerds in general are far more willing to be vicious, cruel ,and hateful towards women than men.
Thanks for sharing this link. I found the video entertaining and informative. I have subscribed to the channel and look forward to more videos in the series.
Edit: I can't take this debating seriously when one of the parties who's taken issue with a feminist web show has a username ending in 69.
I'm just really not sure that's true, Melissa, as far as this youtube video is concerned.
However, I believe one of the female Mass Effect writers got hammered recently by internet trolls after writing on a similar subject and I believe (sadly, I'm saying that a lot... my googlefu is weak tonight), a lot of the internet and other writers rallied to her side.
Today/Yesterday was International Womens Day, a lot of workplaces did sections, blog posts, celebrations of female contributions to their business.
For example, instead of talking about how unfair this all is, instead talk about how influential Ada Lovelace was.
Compel wrote: I'm just really not sure that's true, Melissa, as far as this youtube video is concerned.
However, I believe one of the female Mass Effect writers got hammered recently by internet trolls after writing on a similar subject and I believe (sadly, I'm saying that a lot... my googlefu is weak tonight), a lot of the internet and other writers rallied to her side.
Today/Yesterday was International Womens Day, a lot of workplaces did sections, blog posts, celebrations of female contributions to their business.
For example, instead of talking about how unfair this all is, instead talk about how influential Ada Lovelace was.
Fifteen years of adventure; BioWare writer Ann Lemay on life in the industry
By night, games including World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria, occupy some of Ann Lemay’s time. By day, she’s a writer in the games industry. Starting her career in 1997, Lemay’s worked a broad cross-section of industry jobs: Community Manager, Graphic Designer, Game Designer, and as a Game Writer. Since August 15th 2011, she’s been employed with EA BioWare (Montreal). Before her career in games, Lemay had completed a B.A. in Art History, which armed her with essential skills she’d need in the industry.
“Being able to organize vast amount of information? Priceless. Also, a yearlong stint in telecom as an information architect is beyond useful when it comes to tracking script/dialog variables, eh! Wire-framing is my best friend.” While working on her second B.A. at Concordia, Lemay taught herself web coding. She describes her ability to understand and track the numerous variables and conditionals BioWare writers handle as an invaluable skill rooted into that self-taught skill.
Her love for computer games met a moment of perfect timing—Lemay was ready to start her job hunt when Ubisoft founded their studio in Montreal. “I was fortunate in that Ubisoft was also looking to hire regardless of pertinent industry skill, aware that they were basically going to be training up their first generation work force. We were, all of us, very lucky to be part of a group of people who got to enter the industry without specific videogame experience and were trained on the job.”Coming into the field, Lemay, an avid adventure game player, was equipped with female role models, among them Jane Jensen of the Gabriel Knight games, and Roberta Williams, who worked on titles that include King Quest series and Laura Bow games.
Lemay has now been working in the games industry for fifteen years; she’s watched the conversations about prejudice and privilege evolving across that time. Early in her career, she witnessed and personally experienced the types of industry sexism women are still familiar with. From the basic ignorance born of privilege to conscious sexism, little support existed for women in the industry. Addressing sexism via anti-discrimination policies was something the industry had to develop. Until policies about discrimination and sexual harassment were put into place, coping with a hostile work environment was ignoring it to the best of one’s ability and trying to move on.
“Early on, there was little to no support for women in this regard in the industry. Later on, sexual discrimination initiatives were set up and I had the chance to rely on those at least once—but it is telling that the person with whom I had problems was still allowed to be the one to evaluate me when the time came for annual reviews.” Other women at the same company had equally difficult times attempting to see their cases heard fairly.
“While I’m seeing definite improvement from how things were years ago, anti-discrimination policies (regarding many various –isms) are still dependent on the personnel involved. Most folk I know who have had to deal with reporting such matters, men or women, have worries about backlash with reporting something depending on the factors and people involved.” Then and now, not speaking out about discriminatory barriers encountered in the industry is in part about self-defense: you can’t be trolled and harassed if the information isn’t out there.
While the support for those dealing with sexism has evolved and increased, women taking active roles in mentoring—a cultural and educational boon for those with effective mentors—has been increasing. Though other female developers were in the industry when she started, Lemay describes them as “…distant, quasi-mythical figures.” Whether a woman started in games decades ago or yesterday, access to mentors remains an issue. Lemay had the drive and ability to flourish sans mentor, working with colleagues and seniors who supported her and treated her as a capable developer, while others were less able to do the same.
“There were fellow developers and seniors who treated me as a developer first and foremost, and supported me as I sought to learn and improve my skills. There were some who didn’t—who were stopped by the “wall” of my gender. Still, someone believed in my enough to give me a chance at being a writer in 2004 (hi Gary!) and to this day, I pay it forward as best as I can.” That crucial moment with a supportive mentor provided Lemay with her current outlook towards mentoring.
“I’ve been making efforts to encourage juniors in the field and people wanting to join the field since. I haven’t been making this a gender specific effort; anyone approaching me, I’ll try to assist and support as I can. But—whenever I get the chance to help a women break in the field, or improve her lot in the industry, I am glad I get the chance to do so.”
Mentorship, to Lemay, is not about teaching someone about a trade. Mentors are aware of how the field works, proactively reaching out and helping others through the social and political structures of companies and projects, who can sympathize when it all feels like too much, and offer their support.
“I’ve tried to do this, to instill better communication and networking among writers, and just people in general, when I could. Invariably, people respond to this—you have to take the time to reach out to another human being and assume the best. The results are far more often positive than not.” Lemay believes in creating an industry culture that welcomes women, fosters mentorship, and addresses both gender and privilege.
“It’s important that we have more visible women in the industry. It’s important that there are more women in the industry. There are far more men aware of issues of gender and privilege today than there ever were when I started, but the more women are visible in our field, the more women not in our field will perhaps believe there’s a place for them here among us. I’d like to see our numbers increase, and both visibility and mentorship opportunities will help in this regard.”
Lemay’s found a number of other women, from companies she’s worked at and outside them, who have a unifying attitude of sticking together and being supportive. This has become particularly apparent in the social media age. “Twitter has made this phenomenon truly without barriers, as well—and I’m very, very appreciative of this.” Though many can point to social media as a way to keep in touch with peers, Lemay was firm that it could be utilized in a meaningful way. “Twitter in particular has made social connections across the industry so much easier. It’s amazing how simple it is to connect with others and establish ties with, via Twitter. Professional networking too, yes, but socially—it’s an amazing platform in that sense, and I can’t overstate how integral it’s been to my experience in terms of reaching out to others in the industry, over the past few years. “
With a network of peers in a high-stress field, Lemay’s handling of work stress is aided by her own workplace, where a culture that enables communication can lead to problem-solving. But the passion of her coworkers helps just as much.
“Yes, we have deadlines and—as with the rest of the game industry—loaded work schedules. But I’m working with people who, across all departments, are invested in the narrative on every level. I am also working with people who are highly respectful of their colleagues on every level—it makes everything about my job so very awesome, I can’t even begin to tell you how much.”
Slowly, but surely, the games industry is evolving. Though the culture of the games industry itself contains people who accept privilege and prejudiced attitudes, toleration of such behavior is no longer widespread, and active questioning of such entrenched perspectives is growing.
“I’m seeing a huge change in awareness among devs (gender irrelevant) regarding prejudices of all sorts in the industry, today. Things have changed and progressed, among developer—far more people speak out now.”
Outside the professionals present in the industry are those training and studying on their way to entering it—some of them students Lemay has had the pleasure of teaching.
“I had the chance to teach a class for the Champlain college, a few years ago (wow, time flies!). It was an exceptional experience for me, and one of the things I remember clearly was how hungry to change things my students were. I know the realities of the industry can make this hard on people sometimes, but I hope they still have this drive today. They made me think our industry has a good future.”
LordofHats wrote: I have continually pointed out that the reason she catches this hate has everything to do with her behavior not her gender
And I have pointed out that you are wrong.
Your really going to argue that I, as a guy, can go a make videos saying the exact same thing she says and I won't get an the same amount of hate (honestly I could see a guy being that extremely feminist getting more hate, maybe)? I think you're being a little delusional. She gets all this hate because she is not only wrong but manages to rub everyone the wrong way and she got paid $150000 as a reward, and even though the video probably doesn't rub all that wrong no one seems to care anymore cause they're too invested in not liking her.
LordofHats wrote: Your really going to argue that I, as a guy, can go a make videos saying the exact same thing she says and I won't get an the same amount of hate
Yes.
Because it's true. Whether you're just playing a game and saying "Hey everyone" over the mic, if you're trying to make a joke, or if you're talking about a serious and important subject matter, as a male, you won't be treated anywhere near as viciously as a woman who says the exact same things.
For the record, I'm not trying to play the victim here. I'm just stating the fething truth of the matter. I wish it wasn't the case. And sometimes I go on certain games with gender-neutral or even masculine usernames and never speak JUST to avoid this crap, it's not fun, and I wish I COULD ignore it. But I can't. Nerd culture has severe issues with women.
Melissia wrote: This thread barely took less than ten posts to devolve in to whining about how "feminism sucks" by people who have no goddamned clue what feminism actually is. Not that I expected any better.
The video was interesting, but I kind of expected more out of a video which was funded by actual money instead of just time and effort.
It always bugs me that feminist has become a dirty word. This was actually covered it in one of the other tropes vs women videos.
I'm not going to complain too much about her because we do need a discussion of these sexiest tropes. It's a rather thankless job and she is willing to do it. I appreciate that.
I already provided a link that shows that women, or more specifically female voices, are three times more likely to be insulted in an FPS game like Halo. Or if you're in to comic books-- you goddamned better be a walking encyclopedia as a woman, or you're a "fake geek girl". On the internet, unless you post a picture with your tits out, you're a guy (and if you do, you're an attention whore). A man criticizes a popular nerdy intellectual property, gets told he is an idiot and he sucks; a woman does the same thing, they say they hope she gets raped to death.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, and you ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
I, personally, don't like her because she's the other sort of feminist. I'll gladly read someone like Jenny Trout even when she's criticising a sacred cow like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but Saarkesian annoys me.
Ahtman wrote: Apparently the youtube comment area is now a reasonable, scholastic discussion board. I must have slipped into the Mirror Mirror universe.
"Remember that time you read that insightful series of comments after a Youtube video?" said no one, ever.
It was famously said that if you get infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, they would reproduce the works of Shakespeare. I think Youtube accurately busts that myth, and out of all the dumb places I thought this thread would go, I daresay I never predicted the one where the monkey poop pile that is Youtube comments suddenly have value.
@LoH, the ship may have already sailed, but Dante may be sexualized, however, the others are not. Woman are not attracted to massively muscular brutish men. Men, especially adolescents, want to be Herculean heroes with huge horsecocks. Only a small percentage of woman actually find that attractive. Such characters are made to appeal to a male audience.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I don't use youtube in any great way, and don't have an account with them.
I'm not saying that a policy of any sort would have prevented offensive comments. What I am saying is that it would give the author more credibility to have a framework that she can point to as to why comments that were not offensive were not published. Otherwise she is leaving herself open to the accusation (as mentioned in a rebuttal video earlier in the thread) that she is only publishing comments favourable to her.
But that's not correct, else we would not know about the shitstorm of mysogynistic insults that were hurled around. As you have pointed out yourself, she already has the "framework" she could point to ... and did. There's no need for yet another one, as it would just repeat the same stuff again.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Can I ask your thoughts on her not entertaining comments with an opposing view (not offensive comments) but having no problem sifting through vile comments to publish them when she has a financial interest?
I think that responses to properly presented criticism would lend more credibility to the author. Unfortunately, that's just how it would be in an ideal world. On RealEarth, I doubt that anyone would truly change their views - resulting only in an endless back-and-forth that takes up much of the creator's time and thus delays on further episodes. Ultimately, it would be a waste of time, just like the debates I had with Veteran Sergeant about women in the military. And the "waste of time" bit is actually something both of us agree to. So why even bother? All we're doing is pulling off a show for the viewers, defending our opinions without any chance of actually "winning" the debate. And we at least have the advantage of actually using a proper forum, with all the features that come with it.
That video is a documentation, just like the ones we see in TV. There you can't debate with the author either. You watch it, form your opinion, and then maybe discuss it with people you know.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:So rather than provide a forum for people to discuss what she has said in a mature manner people should go elsewhere? By that logic would it be permissible, or even sensible, for someone to start a thread on this site and then insist that any discussion take place on other sites?
No, because this is a forum. YouTube isn't. It's a popular platform for hosting videos, which is all the creator needed.
The very limited comment section on YT simply isn't intended to support proper debates, and in this case would only get flooded with so much crap that proper discourse is impossible, especially given the character limit, as well as the influence a majority can take on the comments, such as downvoting anything that does not conform to their views, and upvoting what does. You'd end up with majority-approved opinion in the "best comments" section, yet not see potential reaction to it (regardless of how valid or invalid) since the respective answers have long since vanished into the backdrop. I believe an uploader's responses are shown in a separate section nowadays, yet even so that'd mean you have one person facing an army of opponents, even though other users might love to chime in as well.
Her previous videos allowed comments, and this happened: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/ Honestly, I don't know if *I* would want to bother to read through such comments to dig up one or two who might be worth responding to (which there actually were) either, at least not on every single video I'm uploading (if I would upload anything to YT).
Being subjected to such a massive amount of negativity and outright hatred can be disheartening. In not bothering, she saves herself a good amount of time and mood. If she had bothered to respond, nothing would change either. So what's the sensible thing to do here?
Dreadclaw69 wrote:If she is raising awareness she is doing it by repeating what others have said, but better, in front of a camera and with the academic language diluted except when it suits her to establish her credentials. If the well written and polite discussions have been going on for years does that mean they are at a dead end and the only way if to become more extreme?
Sort of. It shouldn't be necessary, but society isn't perfect. At times it feels as if people just don't perceive it as an issue if you don't scream loud enough, but instead just accept "the bitching" (hah, fittingly even this word is sexist ) as part of daily routine. A matter of sensitivity, if you will.
Also, society currently seems to face a weird trend of polarisation - promoting sexism and equality at the same time via different (or even the same) outlets. It's no real surprise that the debates become more hot in response, as people are subjected to and thus influenced by conflicting material, almost forcing them to develop a natural resistance to either one or the other.
It's all a bit chaotic, and I think it will take a few generations more until civilisation figures out a sensible balance - be it with portrayal or perception, or both. But hey, at least we're moving!
Dreadclaw69 wrote:maybe I'm missing something, but are you saying that there is no evidence of sexism in gaming, that it can only be divined by a feeling?
In essence, yes. Else we wouldn't have dakkanauts comparing half-naked women to half-naked men and call it the same thing - or (to flip the table, just for fairness' sake) criticising such opinions. A whole lot of stuff is just a matter of current cultural perception. Take the age of consent, for example - which not only varies hugely by country, but also by era.
Sure, there's a definition in the dictionary. "Prejudice or discrimination based on sex". But where do prejudice and discrimination start? The lines are drawn individually, else we wouldn't have a thread like this. Just think back a few months and recall some of the controversial developer comments. "Girlfriend Mode" - sexist comment or not? Debate starting in 3 ... 2 ...
LordofHats wrote:From what I can tell she's catching more flak for taking money to make the video than anything (around the internet that is).
Thank you Lynata for typing out what I was too lazy to say but was thinking.
I don't get the criticism for kickstarter. It's expensive to make videos, even review videos. The equipment, software, and supplies needed can easily run thousands of dollars, which she opened to crowd sourcing so like minded people who wanted to see the content she was going to make could invest.
We have kickstarters for everything these days, including PLENTY of Youtube based videos. Why should she be excluded and why should we cry foul when she succeeded. She capitalized on the publicity like any business savvy person would.
Lynata wrote: Honestly, I don't know if *I* would want to bother to read through such comments to dig up one or two who might be worth responding to (which there actually were) either, at least not on every single video I'm uploading (if I would upload anything to YT).
Lynata's right really.
Honestly, how many times would any of you be bothered to read through comments like "you stupid [c-bomb], I hope you get raped to death", or "My [male organ] was made for raping and that's just what i'll do, one of these days i'm going to [sex act] all over you", or "You are a daft stupid [c-bomb] and deserve to be called such.", or "Shut the [expletive] up [c-bomb]", or "You stupid [c-bomb], all you need is a good [expletive]ing and then you’d be less uptight.", or "I hope you get raped to death with a gorsebush", and should I really even bother going on?
This is the kind of response women get. Then these people complain about being "censored" in situations like this.
LordofHats wrote: I have continually pointed out that the reason she catches this hate has everything to do with her behavior not her gender
And I have pointed out that you are wrong.
Her being a woman really IS the reason she catches so much flak on the subject. Gamers, or even nerds in general are far more willing to be vicious, cruel ,and hateful towards women than men.
I dunno I got some lovely PMs when I started my thread on women in the modeling hobby and I'm certainly not a woman.
You can find gold everywhere - yes, even on YouTube or 4chan (at least on /tg/). It's just not something to expect and I wouldn't advise anyone who doesn't have a thick skin to read through the stuff.
The ability to just roll eyes and move on instead of feeling compelled to get into an argument helps, too, for you can only lose.
Lynata wrote: You can find gold everywhere - yes, even on YouTube or 4chan (at least on /tg/). It's just not something to expect and I wouldn't advise anyone who doesn't have a thick skin to read through the stuff.
The ability to just roll eyes and move on instead of feeling compelled to get into an argument helps, too, for you can only lose.
I personally like to assume that behind every frothing, illiterate lunatic is a sane, coherent individual who thinks they're being funny. I don't always manage to assume this, but it goes a long way to just laughing at egregious lunacy and moving on.
On the topic of this video and the maelstrom surrounding its creator, you have a half-rate hack raising more money than many people make in half a decade of full time work to make a video reiterating a tired, rather insipid point? That's just outright obscene. Compound it with the fact that receiving unfocused vitriol is part and parcel of being a public figure, and the death threats that get tossed in whenever anything remotely politicized is involved, and the situation makes sense without having to fall back on a persecution complex. She made an obscene amount of money doing a pointless, inflammatory (politicized) thing, unanonymously, on the internet. What do you expect to happen? Anyone who did that would get treated horribly, regardless of their gender or what they were saying.
Inflammatory, maybe. Pointless? No. Although that goes back to what I mentioned about individual perception earlier.
For instance, I've recently read a study assuming that rich people give less to charity (in percent of their earnings) than the poor because they don't see the suffering themselves and thus assume "it's not that bad". Interestingly, the really poor people were donating even more than the middle class (an example given was a guy who had to get by with 6 dollars a day, but bought a $1 cheeseburger for a homeless dude).
Different topic (albeit no less relevant), but you see what I'm getting at here?
The sad thing is that those people tend to receive recognition, approval and applause from other lunatics, tho. That is somewhat dangerous insofar as these people might then carry such "values" back into their daily life outside the internet, thus basically "normalising" such opinions. Even when voiced in a less offensive manner, it's the sentiment that counts.
Maybe I'm just being too negative, but I don't have much faith in humanity in general.
Lynata wrote: You can find gold everywhere - yes, even on YouTube or 4chan (at least on /tg/). It's just not something to expect and I wouldn't advise anyone who doesn't have a thick skin to read through the stuff.
The ability to just roll eyes and move on instead of feeling compelled to get into an argument helps, too, for you can only lose.
I personally like to assume that behind every frothing, illiterate lunatic is a sane, coherent individual who thinks they're being funny. I don't always manage to assume this, but it goes a long way to just laughing at egregious lunacy and moving on.
On the topic of this video and the maelstrom surrounding its creator, you have a half-rate hack raising more money than many people make in half a decade of full time work to make a video reiterating a tired, rather insipid point? That's just outright obscene. Compound it with the fact that receiving unfocused vitriol is part and parcel of being a public figure, and the death threats that get tossed in whenever anything remotely politicized is involved, and the situation makes sense without having to fall back on a persecution complex. She made an obscene amount of money doing a pointless, inflammatory (politicized) thing, unanonymously, on the internet. What do you expect to happen? Anyone who did that would get treated horribly, regardless of their gender or what they were saying.
Putting aside the research showing that no, "anyone" would not have had the same response, I think your... er, fervour, maybe? would be better turned against the people doing the abusing than the one committing the great crime of posting a video on youtube. It'd be nice to live in a world where it was possible to post a youtube video without getting threats of rape and murder, don't you agree?
I'm also not sure how discussing video game tropes is "inflammatory" or "politicised," especially if the point is so "tired" and "rather insipid."
Lynata wrote:For instance, I've recently read a study assuming that rich people give less to charity (in percent of their earnings) than the poor because they don't see the suffering themselves and thus assume "it's not that bad". Interestingly, the really poor people were donating even more than the middle class (an example given was a guy who had to get by with 6 dollars a day, but bought a $1 cheeseburger for a homeless dude).
Different topic (albeit no less relevant), but you see what I'm getting at here?
People who feel powerless are more generous and empathic than those who don't, it's not restricted to the realm of money. Just thinking about being powerful makes people behave in a measurably more callous manner.
Agreed about the lunacy, though.
image
The sad thing is that those people tend to receive recognition, approval and applause from other lunatics, tho. That is somewhat dangerous insofar as these people might then carry such "values" back into their daily life outside the internet, thus basically "normalising" such opinions. Even when voiced in a less offensive manner, it's the sentiment that counts.
Maybe I'm just being too negative, but I don't have much faith in humanity in general.
This is a pretty complex issue. I think a good bit of the frothing lunatics are reasonable people being facetious, either because they think it's funny, because they think it will undermine the point they're endorsing, or because their "social circle" of sorts is doing it and group conformity (for whatever reason) is a strong impulse, even when they're completely anonymous in the context of both the circle and their actions. Then you have kids, who are stupid and don't know better, and should just be disregarded as white noise. And finally, the actual lunatics, who aren't worth engaging at all. I take both a dim and a positive view of humanity, which is rather necessitated by the great personal variations exhibited by humans.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Putting aside the research showing that no, "anyone" would not have had the same response, I think your... er, fervour, maybe? would be better turned against the people doing the abusing than the one committing the great crime of posting a video on youtube. It'd be nice to live in a world where it was possible to post a youtube video without getting threats of rape and murder, don't you agree?
I'm also not sure how discussing video game tropes is "inflammatory" or "politicised," especially if the point is so "tired" and "rather insipid."
What she did was wrong and highly visible. What they're doing is just so much gibbering white noise. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a good bit of the worst of it came from people who actually agree with her, come to think of it, since it devalues legitimate criticism of what she's done (and it is much more this than what she's said: she's neither the first nor the best to say more or less the same thing, yet she got an obscene sum of money for it (more than most people make in half a decade; more than a fair number make in an entire decade).
No, no studies suggest that. There's the bit about Xbox live being a hostile cesspool, which should surprise exactly no one. Trying to claim women receive more hostility as public figures is rather myopic; public figures are magnets for vitriol and criticism. Perhaps women receive dumber vitriol, but not more.
It's "inflammatory" because it's a politicized issue, which always garners frothing rage from at least some people. And it's pointless because it's just reiterating an old point, poorly at that.
It’s an interesting take but what I think she clearly missed one of the big pictures. Video gaming for the longest time has been very much a boys club. Just a fact. People who made, developed, designed and marketed these games in the 80’s and 90’s was pretty much men. Now a days it’s a much more diverse crowd in the gaming world but still the people that are going to wait in line for opening night AAA game releases are still largely men.
I did like the Starfox part but once more I think she missed the mark a little as well. You know why they went with Starfox instead of a new character. Same reason they make a new Call of Duty every year instead of a new series. Franchising. Starfox is already well known name that will bring in money. The other is an unknown property and when money is on the line businessmen will always turn to the one that will turn a profit.
Plus the Double Dragon beginning is still one of the best opening scenes off all time. It is the purest form of motivation any gamer needs. Should never be changed.
The people that do Extra Credits went over this trope anyway long ago and in a much broader fashion then she did. Didn’t feel like I wasted my time watching it but can tell her view is a little too narrow.
Melissia wrote: I already provided a link that shows that women, or more specifically female voices, are three times more likely to be insulted in an FPS game like Halo. Or if you're in to comic books-- you goddamned better be a walking encyclopedia as a woman, or you're a "fake geek girl". On the internet, unless you post a picture with your tits out, you're a guy (and if you do, you're an attention whore). A man criticizes a popular nerdy intellectual property, gets told he is an idiot and he sucks; a woman does the same thing, they say they hope she gets raped to death.
And the media pointing out every time it happens doesn't make it common place. I'm not super active in geek culture where I live, but I go to the LGS, the Gamestop, I'm a member of clans and guilds in numerous games, and I have NEVER noticed a particular hatred directed at the women I've encountered (anecdotal of course).
And the reason I disregard you're link is because it's not the point. It fails to account for how much hate is being directed at Anita while other commentators talking about the same issue fail the get as much negative attention. I refuse to buy into some fantasy, where everyone shakes their heads and agrees that women are poorly represented in video games, but suddenly switch to calling women whores and sluts just because a women said it.
Here you have a girl making a video about stereotypes directed. There are more than a few insulting comments. And yet, she's receiving nothing comparable to what is being directed at Anita.
And this one. I actually like this one a lot and there's virtually no negative comments directed at her in the comments (some of them are even... dear god they're constructive ) She even brings up your point that women get singled out by the boys club, and the comments are largely positive and in agreement with what she says. I'm even gonna repost the video just because this is the person people should be listening to, not Anita Saarwhatsernameicantspellit:
Seriously. Drop the delusion. She is not getting this hate because she's a woman. I'm sure some people are just hating on her cause she's a girl but you're just painting everyone with brush by claiming that it's nearly everyone. No one even knew who she was until the Kickstarter controversy happened and she sparked a lot of that hate on purpose to advance her agenda.
And I mean, I can go to youtube and find dozens of really hateful videos directed at girl gamers (quite a few now directed at Saarkesian), so I'm not trying to pretend hate isn't there. But no one gets as much hate as she's getting just for being a girl and honestly at this point I think she's becoming a detriment to the cause more than anything. Do some research into who this person is. It doesn't take long to realize she has purposely tried to garner as much hate as she can so that she can then use that hate to advance herself. And it's not recent either. She's been doing it for several years.
I daresay I never predicted the one where the monkey poop pile that is Youtube comments suddenly have value.
The funny part being that said poop is used by Anita to further her own agenda at her own convenience.
I'm not going to complain too much about her because we do need a discussion of these sexiest tropes.
Honestly she's probably set the cause back numerous steps. No one will change their mind watching her, and as her fame soars, more people will become familiar with her and associate her with the cause which is only going to harden resistance because she is far too easy to criticize and extremely unlikable as a person. Now, even if someone shows up with a well done and thoughtful commentary on the issue, they'll have to deal with all the backlash she created (backlash she even went out of her way to create as a means of promoting herself) on top of all the other challenges of getting people to listen in the first place. So really she's might be doing far more harm than good.
Youtube comments are worse than 4chan.
And you really have to try hard to be worse than 4chan.
Tis true. The only place worse imo is Yahoo! News comments. Welcome to the den of the galaxies worst scum and villainy where everyone is still convince Obama is actually a Muslim out to destroy us from within and that Glen Beck is a truly brilliant man destroyed by a liberal media conspiracy.
Anyway, I'm having a harder and harder time taking this woman seriously.
Because she really shouldn't be but now the gamers of the world have created a beast that cannot be slain. Don't feed the trolls indeed.
Such characters are made to appeal to a male audience.
The perhaps instead of decrying the oversexualization of women, the discussion should be shifted to the real issue which is the dominance of the male demographic in the market (assuming it is a 'problem' in the sense that it's nature of the beast and can't really be solved like finding the value of x). Unfortunately feminists are too busy spamming the League of Legends forums complaining about Akali's side boob for any discussion of the real problem to ever get a mention and Anita and those like her are really only enforcing that.
Ouze, although for some reason you de-attributed me, wrote: I daresay I never predicted the one where the monkey poop pile that is Youtube comments suddenly have value.
The funny part being that said poop is used by Anita to further her own agenda at her own convenience.
Please, enlighten me how she's using the non-existent comments on the video we're talking about to "further her own agenda".
You allow comments, you're "using them to further your agenda".
Ouze wrote: Please, enlighten me how she's using the non-existent comments on the video we're talking about to "further her own agenda".
You allow comments, you're "using them to further your agenda".
You turn them off, you're a nazi censor.
I fail to see why its even a hard concept to understand. She used the ability to pick which comments would be shown in the comments section of her video to block everything but the nastiest comments. She then took a screen shot and posted it on her blog as evidence that people hate her for being 'daring' and 'brave'. She completely manipulated the comments section to her own advantage and even admits it in some of her own. Seriously. Does no one bother watching any youtubes about her, reading any of the news that is now being written about her, or do they just read her blog and assume she's telling the truth?
EDIT: This point is brought up in nearly every lengthy criticism leveled against her (and she then blocks comments when it's convenient and complains that no one will engage her in discussion).
I've only watched the video in the OP. I know some vague thing about her getting harassed over her kickstarter, but only tangentially. The only comments I've seen are, well, none, since they're disabled.
Do you have any evidence that she blocked positive comments and only allowed negative comments?
There's a video that talks about it at the top of page 2... HBMC linked it as well.
I mean honestly. Go look at some youtube videos. No one ever gets that negative a reaction. I could throw up a video about being a Nazi and killing Jews (godwin!) and I'd probably get a less seemingly negative reaction. It really shouldn't be this hard to point out someone whos obviously manipulating the comments to twist the story in their favor...
OK, so I watched the second one. 11 minutes later, I saw absolutely not evidence at all that she blocks positive comments and allows negatives. No screenshots, no logs, not even really the idea of that. Maybe I watched the wrong one? It was "Burqa Beach Party".
I did hear quite a bit that was noteworthy, though.
At around 6:40 he points out:
She allegedly doesn't have a clear-cut guideline for what comments she allows. As it's her Youtube channel, I'm not sure what the problem with that is. I mean, if I make a a video, I have the right to delete any post that doesn't mention "pancakes" if I feel like it.
"We have no way of knowing if she approves every comment which politely disagrees".
Ok, that proves... nothing. It's like saying "we have no evidence she doesn't kick puppies" "We have no evidence she's not snorting coke off a baby's butt before doing this video". That's a pretty manipulative way of saying something without saying it.
"Her kickstarter video is exemplary of this. She deleted the comments of the 2 videos preceding it, in order to funnel angry youtubers into the only open discussion she has ever facilitated, and closed the discussion when the kickstarter ended".
This is so lol I'm not even sure where to start. She intentionally closed comments on previous threads! Well, I guess people have to post comments about wanting to rape her to death somewhere, huh. It's their god-given right to call her a C-bomb over and over again, and it's her own fault for not allowing them adequate outlets to do so!
The best part about this argument is that the commenters have absolutely no responsibility to their behavior at all. In fact, in this video, they're akin to a natural force that she funnels for destructive use, like a damn full of jerks that she cranks open when she wants. Seriously, what does it say about you that you don't even consider these aspects of it?
She closed the comments once the kickstarter ended! Wow. I hope someone makes sure you tell Yakface and Lego what supervillains they are because they and their agents do the same thing every day.
I'll watch the first one if you guys tell me well, A.) that it's the right one) and that B.) There is an answer to, to repeat my original question, "Do you have any evidence that she blocked positive comments and only allowed negative comments?"
Lynata wrote: But that's not correct, else we would not know about the shitstorm of mysogynistic insults that were hurled around. As you have pointed out yourself, she already has the "framework" she could point to ... and did. There's no need for yet another one, as it would just repeat the same stuff again.
The reason that we know about the storm of misogynistic insults is because she sifted through and published the most inflammatory for sympathy and financial gain (and if a video above is correct, may have incited some of these comments). By only publishing the worst of the worst she may be giving a false narrative and distorting the opposing viewpoint i.e. that anyone who disagrees with her can only result to vicious personal attacks on her, threats, etc. and she is removing any reasonable middle ground to further polarise the debate.
Can you post a link to her framework then please?
Lynata wrote: I think that responses to properly presented criticism would lend more credibility to the author. Unfortunately, that's just how it would be in an ideal world. On RealEarth, I doubt that anyone would truly change their views - resulting only in an endless back-and-forth that takes up much of the creator's time and thus delays on further episodes. Ultimately, it would be a waste of time, just like the debates I had with Veteran Sergeant about women in the military. And the "waste of time" bit is actually something both of us agree to. So why even bother? All we're doing is pulling off a show for the viewers, defending our opinions without any chance of actually "winning" the debate. And we at least have the advantage of actually using a proper forum, with all the features that come with it.
I'm glad that we agree on the potential issue over the author's credibility.
Not exposing your argument to critique does not make an argument stronger, it undermines it because the author believes that their argument is so weak that it cannot be examined. This is what Anita Sarkeesian has been doing. She posts her videos and allows no discussion, she speaks to crowds sympathetic to her cause but she does not allow any critical discussion of her work. Instead she frames her detractors as evil males who would cause her serious physical harm if given half a chance.
Lynata wrote: That video is a documentation, just like the ones we see in TV. There you can't debate with the author either. You watch it, form your opinion, and then maybe discuss it with people you know.
The very limited comment section on YT simply isn't intended to support proper debates, and in this case would only get flooded with so much crap that proper discourse is impossible, especially given the character limit, as well as the influence a majority can take on the comments, such as downvoting anything that does not conform to their views, and upvoting what does. You'd end up with majority-approved opinion in the "best comments" section, yet not see potential reaction to it (regardless of how valid or invalid) since the respective answers have long since vanished into the backdrop. I believe an uploader's responses are shown in a separate section nowadays, yet even so that'd mean you have one person facing an army of opponents, even though other users might love to chime in as well.
TV is a different medium to youtube. TV is very clearly divided between the narrator and the audience and allows no participation. Anita Sarkeesian choose her venue freely, she could have used any number of reliable hosting sites and made the videos available through her site. Instead she choose youtube knowing full well the limitations of that platform.
I have been clear throughout in saying that she need not publish abusive comments, but the fact that she refuses to publish polite counterargument is telling.
Lynata wrote: Her previous videos allowed comments, and this happened: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/ Honestly, I don't know if *I* would want to bother to read through such comments to dig up one or two who might be worth responding to (which there actually were) either, at least not on every single video I'm uploading (if I would upload anything to YT).
Being subjected to such a massive amount of negativity and outright hatred can be disheartening. In not bothering, she saves herself a good amount of time and mood. If she had bothered to respond, nothing would change either. So what's the sensible thing to do here?
Given the fact that she had little problem in sifting through comments when she could make money from it and frame the debate in her favour (without the allegations that she or her supporters helped stir up the hornet's nest) I find it hypocritical in the extreme that she cannot respond to genuine criticism about her work.
Lynata wrote: Sort of. It shouldn't be necessary, but society isn't perfect. At times it feels as if people just don't perceive it as an issue if you don't scream loud enough, but instead just accept "the bitching" (hah, fittingly even this word is sexist ) as part of daily routine. A matter of sensitivity, if you will.
Also, society currently seems to face a weird trend of polarisation - promoting sexism and equality at the same time via different (or even the same) outlets. It's no real surprise that the debates become more hot in response, as people are subjected to and thus influenced by conflicting material, almost forcing them to develop a natural resistance to either one or the other.
It's all a bit chaotic, and I think it will take a few generations more until civilisation figures out a sensible balance - be it with portrayal or perception, or both. But hey, at least we're moving!
For someone who is trying to bring about systemic change through her videos it seems ironic, if not outright hypocritical, that she is a part of the system and the culture that she wished to change. Although judging by her thesis this is maybe unsurprising.
Lynata wrote: In essence, yes. Else we wouldn't have dakkanauts comparing half-naked women to half-naked men and call it the same thing - or (to flip the table, just for fairness' sake) criticising such opinions. A whole lot of stuff is just a matter of current cultural perception. Take the age of consent, for example - which not only varies hugely by country, but also by era.
Sure, there's a definition in the dictionary. "Prejudice or discrimination based on sex". But where do prejudice and discrimination start? The lines are drawn individually, else we wouldn't have a thread like this. Just think back a few months and recall some of the controversial developer comments. "Girlfriend Mode" - sexist comment or not? Debate starting in 3 ... 2 ...
So if there is no evidence of sexism at all then how do we combat it if it is just a feeling? How do we know were to effectively target or make changes to social norms, mores and rules? Lines may be drawn individually but collecting and correlating them expose areas where work needs done and efforts focused.
Discrimination starts when two people who are more or less identical are treated differently because of some difference i.e. hiring between two people with identical experience and education. However in some cases people have no issue with discrimination when it favours them
Ouze wrote: "Do you have any evidence that she blocked positive comments and only allowed negative comments?"
Apparently my belief that people would be capable of thinking critically while watching someone's behavior was misplaced... We're talking about a person who moderates their comment page, ends up approving all the negative ones, and produces a comment page that is nothing but a straight line of insults and hate while she claims to moderate her comments solely to prevent this which you apparently missed in that video. She then produces a screenshot of the insults and decries how unfair everyone is being to her. To add cake to the plate, she spammed 4chan with links to her kickstarter page and then ended up shocked when 4chan spammed her back.
That I'm the only one, who can sit her looking up information about this person, and am apparently the only one to realize what she is doing, saddens me deeply.
Ok, so there is absolutely no evidence this happened, and it's just a made-up story from tin-foil crazy hat land. Got it, thanks.
So, moving on.
Are you guys also alleging she sockpuppeted all those hundreds or however many offensive comments? Because, if she didn't, lets hear the rationalization for why those were all OK. I'd love to hear more people explain why it was actually her fault people posted they wished to rape her to death.
Ouze wrote: Because, if she didn't, lets hear the rationalization for why those were all OK.
In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her.
This kind of abuse is not irregular. It's the standard abuse that female feminists have received for years-- death threats, rape threats, general verbal abuse, all for the crime of being a woman trying to speak up for woman's rights. I've received all of these myself.
How many of you have ever been afraid for your very safety because someone emailed your your address, and said that they were going to come rape you so that you'd shut up? This is, sadly, ALSO not an uncommon occurrence. THIS has also happened to me-- and I was fourteen-fifteen at the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: And the media pointing out every time it happens doesn't make it common place
"The media" ignores it, just like you are. You are incredibly ignorant and you don't know what the HELL you're talking about.
Ouze wrote: Are you guys also alleging she sockpuppeted all those hundreds or however many offensive comments? Because, if she didn't, lets hear the rationalization for why those were all OK. I'd love to hear more people explain why it was actually her fault people posted they wished to rape her to death.
I don't think anyone is condoning the vile responses that she got, much less blaming her for the content of the messages. What, I believe, people have been critical of her for has been for stirring up trouble and then using the more responses (again, I am not saying that the vile responses were justified) to further her own agenda and financial interests.
Melissia wrote: In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her..
I am not one of those people and I would not think highly of anyone who thought that such abuse was ok.
Ouze wrote: Ok, so there is absolutely no evidence this happened, and it's just a made-up story from tin-foil crazy hat land. Got it, thanks.
My tin foil hat isn't crazy. It's got a satellite dish accessory!
I'd love to hear more people explain why it was actually her fault people posted they wished to rape her to death.
Heaven forbid I criticize obviously manipulative behavior designed to garner hate and use it as a shield to escape criticism without being a sexist pig whose okay with people saying hateful things on the internet. That's just asking for too much.
Respectfully, I'd like to hear one of these guys explain it. Not that I'm saying you don't, like, have the right to speak, obviously you do, it's just that I'm utterly fascinated by what I'm reading.
For example,
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The reason that we know about the storm of misogynistic insults is because she sifted through and published the most inflammatory for sympathy and financial gain (and if a video above is correct, may have incited some of these comments)
We've already established there were a storm of misogynistic insults. We've also somehow established that it's somehow her fault. I'd like one of people who made comments like the above to explain why the people posting the comments are totally blameless in this. She published "the most inflammatory for sympathy", but that's.... after the fact, right? I mean, what she did with the comments came after they were made. So please, expand on your post. Tell me how she "incited them". Educate me! Difficulty: Show your work. That means not making a claim ("she only approved negative ones while blocking positive ones") and then posting a link to a video that not only doesn't contain proof, doesn't actually seem to contain the allegation).
LordofHats wrote: Heaven forbid I criticize obviously manipulative behavior designed to garner hate
Please, totally legit question - tell me what she did to cause that behavior. I want you to explain specifically to me how she "garnered" those death threats from all these people who had absolutely no choice in the matter, having been incited. I truly wish to hear and will happily admit when I'm wrong. You show me how a random youtuber had absolutely no choice but to email her a image of a video game character raping her, and I'll call you the better man and publicly apologize for my naivete for all to see, right here.
Melissia wrote: In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her..
Therefor we may never criticize anything she says or does ever. For any reason. Whatsoever. She is the victim and is beyond reproach.
This kind of abuse is not irregular. It's the standard abuse that female feminists have received for years-- death threats, rape threats, general verbal abuse, all for the crime of being a woman trying to speak up for woman's rights. I've received all of these myself.
I've received death threats on the internet... Guess that means there must be some conspiracy against hat lords on the internet.
How many of you have ever been afraid for your very safety because someone emailed your your address, and said that they were going to come rape you so that you'd shut up? This is, sadly, ALSO not an uncommon occurrence. THIS has also happened to me-- and I was fourteen-fifteen at the time.
That sucks. People are horrible in the world. They're cruel and seem to revel in doing cruel things. Guess I can never criticize you ever again for any reason at all. That would be too insensitive of me. You are now absolved of all criticism from this day forward because something horrible happened to you-
Wait. I got mugged one time while walking down the street. Am I now absolved of all criticism?
"The media" ignores it, just like you are.
I guess every time a news article appears about it were just figments of my imagination then.
You are incredibly ignorant and you don't know what the HELL you're talking about.
Guess so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: It's kind of sickening really. Frankly, I'm probably going to have to leave this thread because I'm getting pissed off at you.
That's okay. I'm leaving. Everyone can go on worshiping the ground Anita Sarkeesian walks on, because she's had a hard life and therefor as someone who really doesn't like her, I must relegate myself to the corner where I may never even suggest anything negative about her ever again.
Melissia wrote: Because men are not intelligent enough to criticize without calling her a [c-bomb] and telling her to shut up or you'll rape her to death, I see.
Wow. Now I have to come back because I have to go through all my posts to find where I called her a c-bomb and threatened to rape her. I really am terrible.
LordofHats wrote: [That's okay. I'm leaving. Everyone can go on worshiping the ground Anita Sarkeesian walks on, because she's had a hard life and therefor as someone who really doesn't like her, I must relegate myself to the corner where I may never even suggest anything negative about her ever again.
Hah. Well, I guess ragequitting is always an option, although I'm still hoping someone else will explain to me why all those people had no choice in the matter. Hopefully before her second video comes out; I'd hate to find myself, staring at the screen in shock as my hands move with a mind of their own, programming a game where I virtually beat up a woman I never met.... completely helpless to stop myself, because she incited me into it. How can I protect myself from this villain?
Melissia wrote: Because men are not intelligent enough to criticize without calling her a [c-bomb] and telling her to shut up or you'll rape her to death, I see.
Wow. Now I have to come back because I have to go through all my posts to find where I called her a c-bomb and threatened to rape her. I really am terrible.
You're defending the ones who do this. You're acting like it's okay for them to do this, that they SHOULD be doing this, because HOW fething DARE A WOMAN STAND UP FOR HERSELF.
I don't agree with everything she has to say, I even stated in my first post here that I thought the quality of the video was lacking, especially for something someone put together after a fund raiser. But NOTHING that she said excuses your attitude that she caused men to become irrational, hateful beasts with no free will of their own, or that she even deserved it.
I am? Curse me. Here I thought I was being critical of of her behavior when really I was just encouraging everyone else's behavior. I'm a monster.
But NOTHING that she said excuses your attitude that she caused men to become irrational, hateful beasts with no free will of their own, or that she even deserved it.
Cause that's totally my position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Hah. Well, I guess ragequitting is always an option,
Critical? No, you were far worse than that. I was being critical of her behavior and yet you acted as if I was worshiping her because how DARE I attack the gak-fething donkey caves who drop c-bombs and make death threats, how DARE I, someone who has been on the receiving end of the same kind of abuse heaped upon her, DARE to empathize with her and feel sorry for her, how DARE I say that she doesn't deserve these attacks just because she spoke an opinion that isn't popular! Doing ANY of those things means I "worship" this woman, to use your exact words.
The only one making strawman arguments here is you.
Meh, I'm more into the setting where a female character and a male character (both strong) fight side by side to save the day, and then later they bang each other like the big damn heroes they are.
Melissia wrote: Critical? No, you were far worse than that. I was being critical of her behavior and yet you acted as if I was worshiping her because how DARE I attack the gak-fething donkey caves who drop c-bombs and make death threats, how DARE I, someone who has been on the receiving end of the same kind of abuse heaped upon her, DARE to empathize with her and feel sorry for her, how DARE I say that she doesn't deserve these attacks just because she spoke an opinion that isn't popular!
The only one making strawman arguments here is you.
Yes. Because I totally said spreading hate is a okay somewhere in this thread. Yep. That's totally my argument.
Ouze wrote: We've already established there were a storm of misogynistic insults.
Not arguing that
Ouze wrote: We've also somehow established that it's somehow her fault. I'd like one of people who made comments like the above to explain why the people posting the comments are totally blameless in this.
I never once said they were blameless, nor did I make any attempt to excuse them. To say otherwise is a gross distortion of my words when I have attempted to make my point abundantly clear.
Ouze wrote: She published "the most inflammatory for sympathy", but that's.... after the fact, right?
After the fact that they were received, or after the alleged fact that she and/or her supporters went onto 4chan to stir up a reaction thus ensuring she would receive abuse.
Ouze wrote: I mean, what she did with the comments came after they were made.
After they were made, and after she at the very least selected the worst. If she went and stirred up a reaction that puts a different spin on it. She selected and published only those comments that would garner sympathy and show those with an opposing view in the worst possible light to further her financial interests, gain publicity and distort any debate or discussion in her favour (the automatic assumption being that only those people disagreeing with her could be those espousing the same vile comments she received)
Ouze wrote: So please, expand on your post. Tell me how she "incited them". Educate me! Difficulty: Show your work. That means not making a claim ("she only approved negative ones while blocking positive ones") and then posting a link to a video that not only doesn't contain proof, doesn't actually seem to contain the allegation).
You don't think that by spamming links all over 4chan, one of the least intolerant communities to ever exist regardless of race, religion, age, sexual preference, gender etc., that there was going to be a backlash?
That is quite a feat given that the only person with access to that data is Anita Sarkeesian. So to prove to you that Anita Sarkeesian did in fact only publish the worst comments I have to somehow access her account on youtube, her emails etc. and then post them here and expose myself to possible legal sanction. You'll forgive me if I don't leap at your less than reasonable request.
Melissia wrote: In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her..
Therefor we may never criticize anything she says or does ever. For any reason. Whatsoever. She is the victim and is beyond reproach.
Here, you stated that there is no middle ground between "worship her" and "drop c-bombs, rape threats, and death threats".
And you supported the latter through your sarcasm.
LordofHats wrote:Everyone can go on worshiping the ground Anita Sarkeesian walks on, because she's had a hard life and therefor as someone who really doesn't like her, I must relegate myself to the corner where I may never even suggest anything negative about her ever again.
Once again, no matter how much anyone else was criticizing her, if they were not defending the people dropping c-bombs and rape/death threats, you were attacking us as worshiping her.
These are your posts, just a couple of the arguments where anyone who DARES attack those who would throw the extreme negativity gets defended by you. Are you not capable of understanding that people can disagree with her while still hating the negativity?
Supporting the atrociously negative insults and violent threats of death and rape through sarcastically attacking anyone who is offended by them-- even when they disagree with the person who is being attacked!-- is still supporting the atrociously negative insults and violent threats of death and rape.
And then people wonder why the "Men's Rights Movement" is labeled a hate group.
Melissia wrote: Supporting the atrociously negative insults and violent threats of death and rape through sarcastically attacking anyone who is offended by them
Yep. Because that's my goal. I mean, I was only trying to point out how painting any criticism of someone's behavior as supporting hateful reactions to that person's opinions is an absurd position to take but I guess you're never going to come to that realization.
You don't think that by spamming links all over 4chan, one of the least intolerant
I just wanted to point out that I think you have a slight boo boo here
Melissia wrote: Supporting the atrociously negative insults and violent threats of death and rape through sarcastically attacking anyone who is offended by them
Yep. Because that's my goal.
I don't claim to know your intent. I only know what you have actually done.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: [I never once said they were blameless, nor did I make any attempt to excuse them. To say otherwise is a gross distortion of my words when I have attempted to make my point abundantly clear.
You're doing a great deal of attempting to excuse them. Indeed, nearly every point in your post is focusing on the aftermath of those comments, and how you perceive she "used them", waving away the fact that she was provided with a great deal of horrific comments from which she was able to cherrypick, if indeed she did. You haven't yet shown anything to explain why she deserved to have them happen in the first place. Do you have even a shred of evidence that she spammed 4chan? Did Moot post server logs or something? Or is this, like the removing the positive comments idea, one of those things there is equal proof both for and against those things actually happened; i.e., none either way?
Ouze wrote: You're doing a great deal of attempting to excuse them
That is a disgusting lie, I have done no such thing. Trying to tar me with the same brush as those who posted disgusting comments, while ignoring genuine points I have made is not the tactic of someone who wants an honest discussion.
I stated in my first post in that thread that I don't think she did a good job of saying what she had to say, especially for someone that received actual money to say it. I stated in my second post in that thread that I don't agree with her actions.
And yet SOMEHOW I'm "worshiping" her when I say that the people who viciously attack her and give her death threats and are entirely out of line, and are very misogynistic. I am somehow "worshiping" her when I say that I empathize with her responses after I have received the very same abuse time and time again over the nearly fourteen years I've been on the internet.
And then, as I am held to this hypocritical double standard, people wonder why I sound so angry all the time.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that she spammed 4chan?
I posted a video that mentions it on page 4 (and he has screenshots) but it's probably just a coincidence(/sarcasm).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: And yet SOMEHOW I'm "worshiping" her when I say that the people who viciously attack her and give her death threats and are entirely out of line, and are very misogynistic. I am somehow "worshiping" her when I say that I empathize with her responses after I have received the very same abuse time and time again over the nearly fourteen years I've been on the internet.
No. You're 'worshipping' (because sarcasm now = truth... which seems opposite of what sarcasm is intended to do) because I am written off as a ignorant hater who supports all the trolls who posted on her videos because I dared to dislike her as a person and proposed she manipulated the entire situation to her advantage. Because your position, seems to be that she cannot be criticized at all. To do such is to support the trolls.
LordofHats wrote: Because your position, seems to be that she cannot be criticized at all.
I never said this, and you should be ashamed of yourself for claiming I did.
Really:
In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her.
No one anywhere in the thread ever said the responses were okay. The worst comments in this entire thread (ignoring this entire discussion) are the ones where posters say they didn't even finish the video because it was feminist. But apparently, because none of us took the time to comment that threatening to rape women or posting death threats or calling them mean words were wrong, we must be in support of them. You then proceed to establish a straw man argument where I support these individuals because I claim she baited these responses, even though they're both two different things to be critical of.
That's okay though. In the future I'll just amend this to the end of all my posts:
I, LordofHats, do not support any hate speech in any form, on any subject. So just because I don't explicitly mention in my posts that I don't support hate speech, please don't assume that I do.
LordofHats wrote: But apparently, because none of us took the time to comment that threatening to rape women or posting death threats or calling them mean words were wrong, we must be in support of them.
I took the time to criticize Sarkeesian, and repeatedly stated that I don't agree with her, and yet you still repeatedly jumped on me as saying she was untouchable. Because how DARE I suggest that the people who were making the violent threats and misogynistic comments about her were motivated by misogyny.
No. You do not get a free pass with your double standards.
Melissia wrote: you still repeatedly jumped on me as saying she was untouchable.
Well, first off I only 'jumped' on you once. And I did it in sarcasm so it wasn't really a jump so much as a quip.
Second, you've repeatedly proposed over and over that all the hate is solely based on her being a women even though I found other videos by women on the subject of women in games that garnered nothing comparable to the response she has received (even managed to find one where the video poster was active in discussion with commentators, like the golden egg in a fridge frozen in rotten ones). You then went on to accuse me and others of supporting the people who threaten her, which none of us ever did.
I don't need a free pass, because you're walking away from my posts without reading them at all (that's honestly the only conclusion I can draw) because it appears that we both disagree with her positions, don't support the hate she has received, and really only differ over the conspiracy theory that she baited those responses for her own benefit (I say yes, you say no) and why she's received the hate (you say because she's a woman, I say because she's an unlikeable person). Which you seem to miss entirely.
So now we've spent, what? A page and a half banging our heads together over some position I never claimed (aka a strawman) while you get super offended over a single sarcastic comment directed at your misrepresentation of my position.
LordofHats wrote: But apparently, because none of us took the time to comment that threatening to rape women or posting death threats or calling them mean words were wrong, we must be in support of them.
I took the time to criticize Sarkeesian, and repeatedly stated that I don't agree with her, and yet you still repeatedly jumped on me as saying she was untouchable. Because how DARE I suggest that the people who were making the violent threats and misogynistic comments about her were motivated by misogyny.
No. You do not get a free pass with your double standards.
You've repeatedly attacked any suggestion that legitimate opposition to her actions stems from anything but misogyny, and even purported that the gibbering vitriol she's received is also just straight up because she's a woman, and not par for the course for any public figure on the internet talking about a political matter (at least any public figure who doesn't happen to be a sufficiently endearing lunatic, who's comical and too outlandish to even bother criticising).
Sure, your first post was criticising her, but every other has been focused at attacking anyone else's criticism of her.
You don't seem to realize that most of us just dismiss gibbering vitriol out of hand because, to put it simply, "trolls gonna troll". It's worth neither engaging nor acknowledging them, because they're either just being deliberately outrageous because they find it funny or they're actual lunatics. Criticising them is like trying to fight the ocean with a shovel.
Us men cannot have nice things because apparently women are some majorly oppressed minority in western societies and men and their dirty video-games with half-naked women in fantasy worlds of goblins, dragons, robots, army men and Italian stereotypes is the root of the 'issue'. Feminist logic = create female demographic and unisex demographic whilst simultaneously bashing on and destroying the male demographic.
Also I'm pretty sure that some of her male supporters are like this...
Dreadclaw69 wrote:By only publishing the worst of the worst she may be giving a false narrative and distorting the opposing viewpoint i.e. that anyone who disagrees with her can only result to vicious personal attacks on her, threats, etc. and she is removing any reasonable middle ground to further polarise the debate.
I'm not sure if this is a matter of skewed perception or scepticism on your part, but she did not "publish the worst", she published an unedited random screenshot to showcase the amount and nature of abuse directed at her.
I also thought that this would be the framework you were referring to, but I guess I misunderstood.
And judging from the screenshot, her detractors pretty much framed themselves.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Anita Sarkeesian choose her venue freely, she could have used any number of reliable hosting sites and made the videos available through her site. Instead she choose youtube knowing full well the limitations of that platform.
I would presume she chose youtube because it is the single-most popular video hosting site on the 'web, and thus the best way to reach maximum audience. Since it is informing/presenting that is her goal, this obviously takes precedence.
I think you're just trying to find something, anything to criticise because deep down you don't agree with the message. Why not discuss the message, then?
As for why she gets more abuse than others, personally I would suspect this has to do with her popularity. Other messages like hers just are not as well known, and thus less visited by those people who would leave negative comments.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:For someone who is trying to bring about systemic change through her videos it seems ironic, if not outright hypocritical, that she is a part of the system and the culture that she wished to change.
I think you're seeing more than there is to it - apparently interpreting criticism on male supremacy as an attack on all males.
I did not see any of her other videos, but I did not get that vibe from the one posted by OP at all.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:So if there is no evidence of sexism at all then how do we combat it if it is just a feeling? How do we know were to effectively target or make changes to social norms, mores and rules? Lines may be drawn individually but collecting and correlating them expose areas where work needs done and efforts focused.
Discrimination starts when two people who are more or less identical are treated differently because of some difference i.e. hiring between two people with identical experience and education. However in some cases people have no issue with discrimination when it favours them.
Indeed. If society truly wants equality, it should actually be rather easy to fight sexism simply because one only needs to point out differences and trends. Kind of like that video.
What I was referring to was more referring to how some people won't acknowledge the differences as being wrong or where they originate from, even where they are obvious to exist.
MetalOxide wrote:Also any guys find this offensive, or is it 'funny' because sexism towards men is a joke/does not exist? I for one find it sexist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKA2HrQL1n4
*watches video description* -> "if the sexes were reversed in this ad contemporary feminists would jump out of their pants to make another case of misogyny in our culture."
*watches video title* -> "misandric commercial"
Uh-huh...
What I'm taking away from reading all those comments in that video, as well as in this thread, is that apparently a whole lot of people do not actually perceive that there might be an issue in society, and then automatically jump into a defensive mode because they feel themselves unjustly attacked.
It's kind of sad how this detracts from the actual problem. Women shouldn't lump all men together into a single group just because some (or even a lot, depending on where you draw the line) are sexist. And men shouldn't throw themselves into a single group just because they alone don't feel they are not being sexist either. This is about individuals and how their opinions are shaped by the media.
In an ideal world, society would stand together to identify and oppose anyone who discriminates based on gender, skin colour, religion, nationality or party lines - regardless of their own affiliation. Unfortunately, human psychology results in favouring the creation of groups of uniform individuals, a holdover from our evolution. And that's why we are here now.
So, if theres more strong women in video games, does that mean we don't have to take the bill at restaurants anymore?
Also, is it just me or are almost all men in games also actually displayed like sex symbols? (burly, muscly men, often bare chested etc.). The only difference is, men don't give a gak.
Also, if you want to blame something for all the misogyny and inequality between genders, blame the fething church. That's the thing that's kept this whole thing going in the first place.
Also, is it just me or are almost all men in games also actually displayed like sex symbols? (burly, muscly men, often bare chested etc.). The only difference is, men don't give a gak.
Also, is it just me or are almost all men in games also actually displayed like sex symbols? (burly, muscly men, often bare chested etc.). The only difference is, men don't give a gak.
Not all but a hell of a lot...
I'm sure it's been said at least once or twice now in this thread but those sexualised men in games is FOR straight men
Melissia wrote: The gaming culture, 40k included, is quite hostile to women.
Simply taking that as true, Anita Sarkeesian is not the person anyone should be looking to for advancing feminism. She's kind of an idiot. The video in the OP seems to be her least opinionated and highest quality work which really isn't saying much because it's not really worth the time it takes to watch. She's catching flak because she fits the mold of the stereotypical femnazi and now she's been thrown into the viral level of popularity cause she got paid $150000 to basically keep being that stereotype.
Yep.
She's been trololololing the internet for ages with this. It was an interesting social experiment, but for all the wrong reasons.
MetalOxide wrote: Also I'm pretty sure that some of her male supporters are like this...
Please. I could care less about this woman, who I've never met and until yesterday only vaguely aware of her existence.
I'm offended by the idea that it's my natural reaction to send someone death threats, rape threats, and pornographic images because I have no control over myself if I'm "incited" by some woman somehow. I'm not a mindless brute with no control over my own reactions. When you guys hand-wave away some of stuff that's happened, it not only hurts her, it also cheapens us.
To put it differently, you guys who are saying she used to gaming community to raise a bunch of money should consider the fact that the gaming community's base, neanderthalic reactions were so predictable and disgusting to non-members that she was so easily able to milk the like the disgusting dupes that many proved themselves to be. It doesn't matter what she did with all those horrible comments after they happened, it matters that they happened to begin with. I guess that makes me a virgin white knight though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote: So, if theres more strong women in video games, does that mean we don't have to take the bill at restaurants anymore?
When my wife and I eat out, we usually pay depending on who's got more free cash at the time
I'm offended by the idea that it's my natural reaction to send someone death threats, rape threats, and pornographic images because I have no control over myself if I'm "incited" by some woman somehow. I'm not a mindless brute with no control over my own reactions. When you guys hand-wave away some of stuff that's happened, it not only hurts her, it also cheapens us.
To put it differently, you guys who are saying she used to gaming community to raise a bunch of money should consider the fact that the gaming community's base, neanderthalic reactions were so predictable and disgusting to non-members that she was so easily able to milk the like the disgusting dupes that many proved themselves to be. It doesn't matter what she did with all those horrible comments after they happened, it matters that they happened to begin with. I guess that makes me a virgin white knight though.
You're talking about the actions of a small minority noted for reacting to just about everything with vitriol and death threats. Why should anyone reasonable care about their gibberings in the slightest? They're not indicative of society, nor are they indicative of gamers. I'd even hazard that many of them are only adding their voices in to be part of the mob, because it's all just a big joke from where they're sitting. So ultimately, they're neither participants in the debate nor conclusively representative of their own beliefs, just white noise.
Ouze wrote: ITT, people are oblivious to the fact that if a man posts something unpopular, he's unlikely to get threats to rape him.
I'll just let that sink in for a second.
First of all, I disagree.
You've never read any of Bieber's hate mail, have you?
Also, the content of said abuse is less relevant. Public figures, for whatever reason, get maximum vitriol on the internet. You know this. In addition, that was ironic use of a trope there given the thread title. Which leads to my next point:
Making her seem like the victim and mounting a steed in order to defend her honor seems to be a real-life example of the trope defined in the video in question. As someone who isn't going to do that, I say, even though I disagree with nearly every conclusion she draws, "feth 'em, Anita. Haters gonna hate."
I said unlikely, not impossible. Are you saying that you think anonymous threats against male and female public figures are equally likely to contain threats of rape?
The content of the abuse is only irrelevant if you contend, as you do, that, that she wasn't singled out for abuse in some unique manner due to her sex. I think that's the literal definition of "unique", and I disagree with you.
I've already explained why motivations aren't what you claim they are. You may continue to ignore what I actually said in favor of what you'd prefer to pretend I said, but that's pretty intellectually dishonest. But, you know, whatever works for you.
In some ways she reminds me of Jack Thompson or however you spell it. Let's just fling stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Sorry lady, but you're not gamer enough to tackle the subject properly.
Ignoring what she gets wrong about the actual game, where was she wrong?
1) Bayonetta does go into pornographic poses.
2) She does strip naked in order to go SSJ.
3) There was an ad campaign that involved stripping her down.
All of that is bad. Why can't you make a female character that isn't overly sexualized? This isn't just a case of, oh, X character is curvacious and has a pretty face, no, the entire game is fanservice to an extreme. It reminds me of Witchblade and the fanboy cries of "Well she's a powerful independent character!" How does that justify her being stripped down to near nothing constantly?
Only as an explanation I think she took that video down after negative reactions to it not because of what she says about Bayonetta, but because of her comment about women only trains where people started accusing her of supporting segregation of men and women (or at least that's the only reason I can see for her to take it down).
She probably took flak for commenting on stereotypes about Japanese culture too cause there's a lot of overlap in Gamers and Anime fans and she does present a incorrect and oversimplified presentation of Japan's problems with sexism (you want messed up gender relations, look no further). EDIT: And then applying those problems as though they're true for the US as well.
I said unlikely, not impossible. Are you saying that you think anonymous threats against male and female public figures are equally likely to contain threats of rape?
The content of the abuse is only irrelevant if you contend, as you do, that, that she wasn't singled out for abuse in some unique manner due to her sex. I think that's the literal definition of "unique", and I disagree with you.
I've already explained why motivations aren't what you claim they are. You may continue to ignore what I actually said in favor of what you'd prefer to pretend I said, but that's pretty intellectually dishonest. But, you know, whatever works for you.
The litanies of hate from the internet vary from when the target is male or female. You'll note that her penis size or other male-oriented insults weren't used. The content of the net hate was such as it was because she happened to be female, not because of it. You seem to think that rape is the worst thing to threaten someone with, when there are public figures that deal with death threats on a daily basis.
You seem really emotional about this, so I'm not sure trying to have an objective discussion with you on this topic is worthwhile.
There's no more wretched hive of scum and villainy that YT comments. I set up my adblock to weed it out years ago.
I've seen the same type of comments on cartoon shows, old songs, tv reruns... is it really indicative of anything other than "give trolls free reign and all you'll have on your site are trolls"?
Monster Rain wrote: The litanies of hate from the internet vary from when the target is male or female.
You should start a debate with Monster Rain from earlier in the thread. He was saying the exact opposite of you, specifically, "people pretend that the person in the video in the OP was singled out in some unique manner for abuse on the internet based on her sex. " Pretty funny, huh?
Monster Rain wrote: The content of the net hate was such as it was because she happened to be female, not because of it.
<Nods sagely>
Monster Rain wrote: You seem to think that rape is the worst thing to threaten someone with, when there are public figures that deal with death threats on a daily basis.
I didn't actually say that (but have fun whaling on that strawman!). I think death threats are worse, which of course she also got in plentiful supply. Let me try and recap where we are here; Monster Rain #1 pointed out that women don't get harassed in a unique manner. I pointed out that was not really true, and then Monster Rain #2 kind of made my argument for me. I'm not really sure what your argument is anymore, since we have kind of a Schrodinger's Cat kind of situation now,
Ignoring what she gets wrong about the actual game, where was she wrong?
1) Bayonetta does go into pornographic poses.
2) She does strip naked in order to go SSJ.
3) There was an ad campaign that involved stripping her down.
All of that is bad. Why can't you make a female character that isn't overly sexualized? This isn't just a case of, oh, X character is curvacious and has a pretty face, no, the entire game is fanservice to an extreme. It reminds me of Witchblade and the fanboy cries of "Well she's a powerful independent character!" How does that justify her being stripped down to near nothing constantly?
The thing that's important to note in Bayonetta's character is the attitude she portrays. She's not being sexualized so much as she's embodying and owning her own sexuality. And considering the completely over-the-top nature of the game and the world it takes place in, this absolutely fits.
I think Bob Chapman (Game Overthinker) summed it up perfectly with this statement:
She wants it all right, she’s just pretty doubtful that you’re the one who’s going to deliver is what that basically says. And there you have it, the first videogame woman who’s been successfully and unashamedly built to not just be sexy, to not just be strong, but be sexually intimidating
The key thing that has to be kept in mind is whether the character is being portrayed as a sexual object, or whether that sexuality is just an aspect of the character. And despite the overt nature of her sexuality, it's only an aspect of Bayonetta.
I'll quote part of an essay I wrote on the game, since despite the somewhat unpolished nature of the paper itself, I feel it covers the points decently:
Bayonetta oozes sexuality, but she does so in a way that does not betray her status as a woman or depth as a character. There have been other characters who have plenty of sex appeal, but they’re rarely little more than sex symbols to be consumed. Most games tend to have their female characters represented in one of two ways: as either generally passive individuals who are vulnerable and approachable, or as cold and impersonal, with not much in the way of human characteristics. Essentially, female characters that are feminine are either vulnerable because of it (their femininity) and present the idea that they are attainable, or they are unattainable but un-wanting, essentially holding their sexuality at arms’ length, portraying the image of sexuality without actually conveying the ideals behind it. They’re unattainable to the audience, but only because they’re essentially asexual (sure, she wears hooker-boots and a string bikini into battle, but no one seems to bat an eye for some strange reason…). Bayonetta turns this concept on its head. She puts her sexuality on full display, almost every aspect of her design and movement is made to flaunt the fact that she acknowledges her sexuality. She’s certainly not very vulnerable either. Rather, she’s a very dominant figure. This is reflected in not just the interactions between characters (mainly between Bayonetta and Luka), but also in the way she moves in the game. Her movements may be careless and erotic, but they are also very refined and precise. She is a character that is always in control of her body and those around her. Many of her special attacks involve the use of torture instruments, which (kinky inferences aside) also imply a sense of dominance about her character. Even her character design helps to reaffirm this. In addition to the abundance of black, a naturally intimidating and dominant colour, in her design, her proportions, (which, according to Kenichiro Yoshimura “I have looked at many foreign models for reference in my line of work, and there are people actually proportioned like Bayonetta.”) also emphasize this aspect of dominance. Simply put, she’s tall, and her height is another aspect that she uses to assume a dominant presence throughout most of the game.
Bayonetta as a character goes way beyond a BDSM inspired satire of video-game over-the-top qualities (although she does that too), the notions of control that she inspires are one thing, but also the fact that she exemplifies a character who is shown to be sexually wanting, but also with high enough standards and an incredibly dominating presence allow her to make the audience feel sexually intimidated by her. She has the confidence, control and power that most female videogame characters that are sexually approachable lack.
While Bayonetta represents feminine empowerment through sexual dominance (done right), it’s not a template that can be used to great effect in most games without breaking the sense of disbelief irreversibly. She’s an over-the-top character in an over-the-top world. Representing the ideals of femininity and sexuality in games becomes a fair bit harder when trying to make characters that try to exist on more ‘realistic’ grounds.
Game of thrones has a perfect example of a bad ass woman, not sexualized.. Who gives a crap she will kick ass, she also isn't (something that you personally cannot stand) a 100lb 5'1" super ninja one punching 230lb 6'5" dudes all over the place, I want more woman in movies and games like her and less black widow (avengers) less Charlie's angels, less total crap like those.
I don't see what's wrong with having female characters being pure fan service, but it would be nice to see media in general (not just video games) make a stronger effort to deviate from gender stereotypes and/or make more realistic and believable characters.
Here you have a girl making a video about stereotypes directed. There are more than a few insulting comments. And yet, she's receiving nothing comparable to what is being directed at Anita.
I did.
And then I posted on it.
And noticed that she APPROVES of all the comments on her video.
Monster Rain wrote: The litanies of hate from the internet vary from when the target is male or female.
You should start a debate with Monster Rain from earlier in the thread. He was saying the exact opposite of you, specifically, "people pretend that the person in the video in the OP was singled out in some unique manner for abuse on the internet based on her sex. " Pretty funny, huh?.
For someone who is mad about strawmen... wow. Context. Live it; love it.
Monster Rain wrote: You seem to think that rape is the worst thing to threaten someone with, when there are public figures that deal with death threats on a daily basis.
I didn't actually say that (but have fun whaling on that strawman!). I think death threats are worse, which of course she also got in plentiful supply. Let me try and recap where we are here; Monster Rain #1 pointed out that women don't get harassed in a unique manner. I pointed out that was not really true, and then Monster Rain #2 kind of made my argument for me. I'm not really sure what your argument is anymore, since we have kind of a Schrodinger's Cat kind of situation now, .
You brought up rape threats as though it were some sort of trump card, brohemoth. I was letting you know that there are worse things to be threatened with as a public figure regardless of gender or sex.
You're either deliberately misinterpreting what I've said, or just way too close to this to think clearly. It's entirely possible that abuse didn't originate due to Sarkeesian's gender, but the form it took did. Keeping up?
Well, after reading your post, I am feeling an emotion, but it's mostly derision.
Oh you. I genuinely like angry Ouze. Best heel turn ever. But like I said, this isn't going anywhere productive. I'll unsubscribe, and you can feel free to have the last word. Tell me I'm ragequitting or something classy like that.
I have to say, with the "best heel turn ever" line, I laughed.
Now it's all broken between us, we're going to have to have the kids deliver messages for each other, and then we won't even look at each other during.
Why did you have to come between us, Anita Sarkeesian!
Lynata wrote: I'm not sure if this is a matter of skewed perception or scepticism on your part, but she did not "publish the worst", she published an unedited random screenshot to showcase the amount and nature of abuse directed at her.
I also thought that this would be the framework you were referring to, but I guess I misunderstood.
And judging from the screenshot, her detractors pretty much framed themselves.
Skewed perception? Care to elaborate on this?
Lynata wrote: I would presume she chose youtube because it is the single-most popular video hosting site on the 'web, and thus the best way to reach maximum audience. Since it is informing/presenting that is her goal, this obviously takes precedence.
I think you're just trying to find something, anything to criticise because deep down you don't agree with the message. Why not discuss the message, then?
So my perception is skewed, or I'm cynical and deep down you claim I don't agree with her message. Next you'll be telling me that its because of some childhood trauma, or that it relates to my mother What message has she given so far? She is one video into her current series that is outlining her argument. As I said on Page 1 I was reserving judgement on her message until later in the series. That does not prohibit me from comment on her conduct up to this point. That includes stirring up hostile reaction for financial advantage, and posting her work for public dissemination and frustrating any critical examination of it. As I said before it comes across as academically dishonest, as well as insulting to those who backed her kickstarter.
Lynata wrote: As for why she gets more abuse than others, personally I would suspect this has to do with her popularity. Other messages like hers just are not as well known, and thus less visited by those people who would leave negative comments.
Or is it because she and/or her supporters decided to spam up a renowned cesspit on the internet to provoke a reaction.
Lynata wrote: I think you're seeing more than there is to it - apparently interpreting criticism on male supremacy as an attack on all males.
That is not the case. Please do not subscribe arguments or motivations to me, especially when there is nothing to support your claims. I have pointed out some flaws in her arguments and the way they are presented to her audience
Lynata wrote: Indeed. If society truly wants equality, it should actually be rather easy to fight sexism simply because one only needs to point out differences and trends. Kind of like that video.
What I was referring to was more referring to how some people won't acknowledge the differences as being wrong or where they originate from, even where they are obvious to exist.
I can appreciate that approach much more than being based on a feeling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: When my wife and I eat out, we usually pay depending on who's got more free cash at the time
My wife and I share a bank account so it really doesn't matter who pays
Anita Sarkeesian's video and the subsequent mild crankiness, and delightfully histrionic hullabaloo from Dakka's usual suspect, will be in the misty past. But our love will spring eternal.
Ouze wrote: So, when is part two of this series due? Or is there no ETA? I know this part, the one that was released, was delayed some apparently.
Also, how many parts total?
Quite a few, as there will be topics covered beyond 'Damsels In Distress', and this may be more than two parts as well. Probably have to be a Kickstarter backer to know as that is where updates are posted as far as I know.
Now is that an acceptable gender imbalance so show mainly dead men, or would increasing the number of female zombies further the argument that they are objects with no freewill being acted upon by a male protagonist, or that it de-sensitizes us towards violence against women, or that we are now sexualising the dead on account of their torn clothing?
Now is that an acceptable gender imbalance so show mainly dead men, or would increasing the number of female zombies further the argument that they are objects with no freewill being acted upon by a male protagonist, or that it de-sensitizes us towards violence against women, or that we are now sexualising the dead on account of their torn clothing?
I agree with what she said but... she didn't really say anything we didn't know about already. People gave her 100,000 dollars and a summary is what we got?
If she didn't want to see the sea of troll comments (cause feminists tend to get them), then she should've at least left the ratings bar on.
After seeing her video on Bayonetta, I've lost some hope that she'll put out something that isn't just feminist propaganda.
After seeing her video on Bayonetta, I've lost some hope that she'll put out something that isn't just feminist propaganda.
I hate making this point, because I shouldn't have to. Feminism is not a dirty word. It simply means the ideal that men and women are given the same rights and social status.
Her Bayonetta video was awful, and her fist video for TvsW may have been somewhat underwhelming in what it covered, but that's not the point. Sarkeesian may raise a few decent points, and a fair few poor ones, the important part of this entire controversy has nothing to do with her arguments, but by her awful treatment by the videogame playing community. Because of such childish behaviour, her vindication reaches far beyond her arguments or her videos. The videogame community's obscene clamoring to shut her down only proved the need for someone like her to spur on conversation on the subject. I don't agree with everything she says, and some of her arguments may be silly, but I have to applaud her simply for acting as a platform to start discussion on a subject that needs to be discussed.
Fafnir wrote: but by her awful treatment by the videogame playing community
The video gaming community, or 4chan?
Or Lego Fans, TV fans, Hunger Games fans the list goes on (most of her videos have nothing to do with video games). Even setting aside my conspiracy theory that she orchestrated that entire series of events for financial gain, there's no real reason to believe that the backlash was solely from one source. She did for most of that videos run leave it unmoderated, the first time she's ever done that (all her other videos have comment moderation on) so we have no basis on which to assume that the hate is only about the subject of women in video games. And one way or another, links to it were spammed across 4chan which pretty much guaranteed a crap storm would follow.
And honestly if you want to complain about feminism being a treated like a dirty word, blame her. People like her are the reason why it gets just a negative context around it.
People gave her 100,000 dollars and a summary is what we got?
I did say earlier in the thread that, for something she was given a lot of money to do, Damsel in Distress may not have been the best trope to kick everything off with. There are better ones she could have done, like the root of nearly all the tropes I suspect she's likely to cover: Women are Delicate Would have been a much better way to set the stage. But then I never credited her with being good at what she's doing so *shrugs*
LordofHats wrote: Or Lego Fans, TV fans, Hunger Games fans the list goes on (most of her videos have nothing to do with video games) Even setting aside my conspiracy theory that she orchestrated that entire series of events for financial gain, there's no real reason to believe that the backlash was solely from one source. She did for most of that videos run leave it unmoderated, the first time she's ever done that (all her other videos have comment moderation on) so we have no basis on which to assume that the hate is only about the subject of women in video games. And one way or another, links to it were spammed across 4chan which pretty much guaranteed a crap storm would follow..
Its a conspiracy theory that we share then. I just find it too coincidental that the only video she allows comments to be published for happens to be the one that will earn her money, and its also the one that 4chan trolled because her links were spammed all over their site. Being surprised that 4chan rose to that sort of bait is like wondering why you got stung for shoving your fist in a wasp's nest. A quick scan of the comments to pick out some of the absolutely vile ones and bingo - instant sympathy and anyone expressing an opposing viewpoint is tainted so having an open and honest discussion becomes much more difficult.
LordofHats wrote: I did say earlier in the thread that, for something she was given a lot of money to do, Damsel in Distress may not have been the best trope to kick everything off with. There are better ones she could have done, like the root of nearly all the tropes I suspect she's likely to cover: Women are Delicate Would have been a much better way to set the stage. But then I never credited her with being good at what she's doing so *shrugs*
It may not have been the best one to kick it off with, but is was one of the easier ones. All she had to do was take feminist critiques of fairytales and cinema, remove most of the academic language (except when she wants to display some academic prowess) and repeat them, but with examples from video games (mainly the Nintendo series that rehases the same plot for almost every game).
The "Woman Are Delicate" trope might be later in the series should she try and take several different tropes and attempt to link them with a central theme.
Soladrin wrote: Mhm, the main problem with the word feminist is that for most people it's seen as what's actually misandrist.
The main problem is that there are two distinct groups that lay claim to that word - sex-positive feminists and anti-porn feminists - one of which is happy to accuse innocent people of hurting women by not conforming to their orthodoxy. It's like how vegetarians sometimes find themselves being tarred with the same brush as the "meat is murder" loons.
Women are delicate does have some truth in television. It certainly doesn't help that it is entirely acceptable (in America at least) for a girl to cry over a broken nail, but if a guy did so he would be a "sissy".
Even though there is no consistent standard for what makes a girl 'tough', it seems to me to be consistently lower than the minimum standard for a boy to not be a wimp.
Everything I see in regards to physical injuries suggests that women get injured more frequently. ACL injuries are a big one and from what I understand that often stems from overdeveloped quadriceps relative to hamstring muscles due to differences in skeletal structure.
Mentally though, there should really be a minimal difference between genders. Men whine plenty when they can get away with it.
AlexHolker wrote: The main problem is that there are two distinct groups that lay claim to that word - sex-positive feminists and anti-porn feminists - one of which is happy to accuse innocent people of hurting women by not conforming to their orthodoxy. It's like how vegetarians sometimes find themselves being tarred with the same brush as the "meat is murder" loons.
Sadly, as with any group, often its the more extreme elements that get the most attention and publicity.
Amaya wrote: Women are delicate does have some truth in television. It certainly doesn't help that it is entirely acceptable (in America at least) for a girl to cry over a broken nail, but if a guy did so he would be a "sissy".
While I disagree often with TV Tropes on details, I'm gonna run with them in saying that Women are Delicate is ultimately the most dominant trope related to women in all media. Even in chick flicks you'll often see women being presented in a more 'delicate' light than men. It even extends out of entertainment media.
Example:
Two events occur. A woman walks down a street and is mugged. Elsewhere, a man walks down a street and gets mugged. Both lose $20 and the credit cards and ID.
The woman is more likely to make it into the news solely because she is a woman. There will be the group of people with the typical "why are you walking down the street in the first place" comments, but the rest will typically be summed up by "that sucks" and "how dare he mug this nice lady." And of course the white knight comments "I see a guy being mean to a lady and I show him what for." The guy, is less likely to make it into the news just because he's a guy. Most comments will probably be summed up with "that sucks" and "you're a panzy I'd of beaten the guy up."
Inherently, society care more that the woman was mugged than the man. The woman will be treated as someone who needs protection (whether in the form of not walking down the street at all or in the form that attacking her is more a disreputable crime). The man on the other hand is going to garner sympathy, and might have his masculinity called into question, but will mostly be given a there there pat on the back get on with life now. I'll also note it's mostly likely going to be inherently assumed, that the mugger was probably male, further reinforcing the idea that a woman is delicate because no woman would mug someone.
Soladrin wrote: Mhm, the main problem with the word feminist is that for most people it's seen as what's actually misandrist.
The main problem is that there are two distinct groups that lay claim to that word - sex-positive feminists and anti-porn feminists - one of which is happy to accuse innocent people of hurting women by not conforming to their orthodoxy. It's like how vegetarians sometimes find themselves being tarred with the same brush as the "meat is murder" loons.
It does depend which phase of feminism they associate with. Post-feminism tends to use sexuality as a method of gaining power while 1st or second wave feminism is much more old fashioned in their feminism but are mostly just misandrists masquerading as feminists.
Amaya wrote: Women are delicate does have some truth in television. It certainly doesn't help that it is entirely acceptable (in America at least) for a girl to cry over a broken nail, but if a guy did so he would be a "sissy".
Spoiler:
While I disagree often with TV Tropes on details, I'm gonna run with them in saying that Women are Delicate is ultimately the most dominant trope related to women in all media. Even in chick flicks you'll often see women being presented in a more 'delicate' light than men. It even extends out of entertainment media.
Example:
Two events occur. A woman walks down a street and is mugged. Elsewhere, a man walks down a street and gets mugged. Both lose $20 and the credit cards and ID.
The woman is more likely to make it into the news solely because she is a woman. There will be the group of people with the typical "why are you walking down the street in the first place" comments, but the rest will typically be summed up by "that sucks" and "how dare he mug this nice lady." And of course the white knight comments "I see a guy being mean to a lady and I show him what for." The guy, is less likely to make it into the news just because he's a guy. Most comments will probably be summed up with "that sucks" and "you're a panzy I'd of beaten the guy up."
Inherently, society care more that the woman was mugged than the man. The woman will be treated as someone who needs protection (whether in the form of not walking down the street at all or in the form that attacking her is more a disreputable crime). The man on the other hand is going to garner sympathy, and might have his masculinity called into question, but will mostly be given a there there pat on the back get on with life now. I'll also note it's mostly likely going to be inherently assumed, that the mugger was probably male, further reinforcing the idea that a woman is delicate because no woman would mug someone.
Trope in real life yo.
Ah, the implications! Like how male rape/sexual harassment cases aren't taken seriously but with females the rapist might as well have been hitler. I remember reading about this female Russian store owner who was being robbed. What she did was capture the guy and held him against his will all the while raping him. Horrid story but, if I heard right, she received a lot of praise (A lot here meaning more than she should have). If the genders were reversed, the store owner would've been burned at the stake.
Sex inequality runs both ways, man, and that is my main issue with feminists. They want equality by focusing on only half of the population. As for the earlier poster, I don't see feminism as a dirty term just as I don't see democrat as a dirty term. I just disagree with both groups on a lot of things.
Note: Don't take my disagreement with feminists as a sign saying "Oh, he hates women because he doesn't think we should have equal rights!". I'm not saying women shouldn't have equal rights, I'm just saying that if they want them the focus on social issues should be, well, equal.
Well, women definitely suffer the brunt of it more than men. My main issue with this stuff though is that the discussion is almost always twisted in some stupid direction (Rather than actually talking about portrays of the sexes, their roles in a narrative get debated which is a stupid way to talk about the issue). In some ways some of the stuff now directed at men is a direct result of society attempting to adjust to meet women's expectations.
Continuing the trope examples: Higher Education is for Women because if there's a bossy know it all in the group, it's probably a girl. Examples include Hermione, Annabeth Chase, Sakura Haruno, Lisa Simpson, and Kim Possible (though I'll not most of these examples I would not consider sexist). It is often invoked in RPG's as well, and the Japanese LOVE this trope. Almost any given Anime/Manga will use it, as will many J-RPG's.
This trope spawned from the desire of women for stronger representation of their gender in media, and in search of a strong female presence, media producers went with what most Western societies consider positive qualities (intelligence, education, class, confidence). Most sitcoms invoke this trope (and anything made by Seth MacFarlane). These educated female protagonists, were added on top of a fairly standard male protagonist type to try and appeal to women.
The end result though is that now we have a common habit of women often being portrayed as more intelligent and dedicated, and men being lazy and stupid in ways far in excess of actual societal reflections. This is completely unintentional trend in media and it's ironic that feminism is responsible for it's rise. And this isn't to say that it's only negative towards men. The trope is often invoked be invoked in ways that reflect poorly on men and women. The women are often bossy, or so book smart they need the male character to educate them about real life or some such (So even still, men come out on top a lot of the time).
EDIT: Gah. My head got sidetracked while typing this out. Really what I'm referencing isn't one trope but rather a collection of them that embody the idea "girls are smarter than boys" and how these tropes have become much more common since the fight for women's rights began.
What about Tropes Vs. Men. Men in sitcoms(especially fathers) tend to be portrayed as idiots, For example, Set Mcfarlene shows and the Simpsons show nearly all them men in the ahow as incapable of higher level thinking.
hotsauceman1 wrote: What about Tropes Vs. Men. Men in sitcoms(especially fathers) tend to be portrayed as idiots, For example, Set Mcfarlene shows and the Simpsons show nearly all them men in the ahow as incapable of higher level thinking.
To be fair men are often stereotyped just as much as women in media and society, if not more so as it's seems tomboys are more accepted than feminine men .
Well the issue is that for men, our stereotypes tend to be more positive. They're not all positive, but for the men don't seem to have a problem with most of them. The idiot husband I'm sure plenty of guys are tired of seeing on TV, but men don't generally complain about tropes like Men use Violence, Women use Communication or Guys Smash, Girls Shoot (though that one gets inverted... a lot). We like action... So that men regularly get to be the badass with sword killing every living thing in site doesn't really bother us the same way that a woman would be bothered by the token female character who's really just in there to be eye candy... Or to give the guys with swords something to kill each other over.
Some tropes though like Higher Education is for Women, Women are Wiser, Men are Generic (and even then think of Boba Fett, whose more bad ass because he's generic), Women are Special, reflect poorly on both sexes, but its the female side of the debate that gets nearly all the attention.
FYI: There's a whole monster list of them here: Gender Dynamics Index. This sentence here I think really identifies my problem with the gender debates: "Another way to look at it is this: female characters are defined by the passive value that others give them, male characters are defined by their actions, usually to protect or win that which they find valuable. Female characters have passive value but they don't create it while male characters don't have passive value so they must create active value. Female characters can be exploited for their passive value and male characters are expendable if they fail to create their own value by advancing the plot through their actions." There are two genders being stereotyped here, not one. But all I ever hear about is the one.
It's also not like the family's dad is the only man in these shows. Even if he's shown as not too bright, there will be other men in the show who aren't depicted as dumb. Women in Nintendo games, not so much.
Though again, none of this stuff has meaning in a vacuum. The world's a big place and context is all-important. Princess Peach being rescued by Mario over and over is only problematic if it's part of a wider culture. One thing on its own doesn't make a pattern.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It's also not like the family's dad is the only man in these shows. Even if he's shown as not too bright, there will be other men in the show who aren't depicted as dumb. Women in Nintendo games, not so much.
Though again, none of this stuff has meaning in a vacuum. The world's a big place and context is all-important. Princess Peach being rescued by Mario over and over is only problematic if it's part of a wider culture. One thing on its own doesn't make a pattern.
Which it is a wider part of culture, from early on little girls and boys are fitted into gender stereotypes through society like watching the Disney princess movies where the princess characters are gentle, pretty and submissive and the men are tall, influential and make the major decisions in
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It's also not like the family's dad is the only man in these shows. Even if he's shown as not too bright, there will be other men in the show who aren't depicted as dumb. Women in Nintendo games, not so much.
Honestly, in some shows the idiot husband's wife is the only person with any sense in sight. Look at the inhabitants of Springfield. Marge and Lissa are practically the only sensible people in the entire town (and maybe Smithers).
Flanders isn't a complete idiot, just a bit of a religious nut. (based on the last several seasons, I have not watched all of the Simpsons)
Some of these tropes are fairly accurate representations of American suburbia at least. Girls may not be smarter, but they certainly do, on average, get higher grades and generally work harder...at just about everything other than mindless vanity based weightlifting. If you want to coach or teach someone will actually listen to you, your best bet is a girl. Guys aren't dumber, but they tend to be lazier, more resistant to authority, and much more aggressive and assertive. These are both very broad generalizations and many individuals do not reflect them.
Amaya wrote: Some of these tropes are fairly accurate representations of American suburbia at least. Girls may not be smarter, but they certainly do, on average, get higher grades and generally work harder...
The same is true of most tropes about women. They're stereotypes. No one is saying they don't have some basis in fact. Stereotypes do come from somewhere. My problem is the overt focus given to one end of gender equality (EDIT: I mean in gender roles).
Largely the debate is focused on making women equal to men which entails the idea that women would take on traditional male roles. What it means to be feminine is being redefined. However, masculinity isn't being redefined at all, even though we really should be asking ourselves culturally if it should be. This is of course the result of the rights debates as men don't need their rights asserted or assured. But where the discussion really should be about the roles of men and women in media, instead its primarily about women in media and usually in some stupid direction that doesn't even warrant attention.
How on earth can: "men don't need their rights asserted or assured" be construed as arguing for men's rights? It's not a rights discussion it's a gender roles discussion.
EDIT: Hold on that's my fault. I used equality without clarifying. Fixing.
Melissia wrote: Ir swear to The Emperor Upon His Golden Throne that if this continues to devolve in to a men's rights movement thread I will puke.
Im not saying men Rights, what im saying is that there are numerous tropes that men should dislike aswell. And that we have a right to complain. I dont like my gender being portryed as bulging muscleheads as much as i bet you dont like your gender being portrayed as weak.
Melissia wrote: Ir swear to The Emperor Upon His Golden Throne that if this continues to devolve in to a men's rights movement thread I will puke.
Im not saying men Rights, what im saying is that there are numerous tropes that men should dislike aswell. And that we have a right to complain. I dont like my gender being portryed as bulging muscleheads as much as i bet you dont like your gender being portrayed as weak.
Well we really should also consider that's kind of more than a little bit on us. Women have been asking themselves "What is a woman? How do I determine my value as a person?" for like... 60 years now (more?)? Us guys, don't really ask ourselves this same question, and maybe we really should be. I heard more than a few women ask the question so really, why don't we talk about it?
I suppose because, maybe we might not like the definition we have now. Because right now being a man is often interspred with violence and agressiveness.
LordofHats wrote: How on earth can: "men don't need their rights asserted or assured" be construed as arguing for men's rights?
I wasn't talking about your posts specifically, but about the direction the thread was headed.
I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).
A lot of people on this forum seem to have a large number of misconceptions about the movement, causing them to bring up things like "but men are affected too!", which is not only entirely missing the point but also little more than a distraction from the issue at hand. While I know that the term "patriarchy" will probably cause some eye-rolls from those with the most derision from the movement, I still feel the need to say it-- through deconstructing the patriarchy and making men and women treated more equal in all facets of media, life in general will become better for both genders.
Really? Alot of feminists in my classes(as in my Proff's) just seem to do nothing but complain about feminism and how it is portrayed and how women are portrayed. They sometimes act like Anti-feminist Feminist's.
Amaya wrote: Because it is a stupid question. Gender is irrelevant. Ask what makes you a person, not a man or woman.
Since we as men and women, identify aspects of our biology as part of ourselves, it kind of is. Being a man is part of who I am as a person. So I must ask, what is a man and what does being a man mean to me? While women have been pushing for decades and make slow progress in redefining what being a woman means, men have made no real progress themselves in redefining what being a man means.
We can reduce the gender divide, but I really don't think we should foster the illusion that it can be destroyed... Not anytime soon anyway. We've got about 5,000 years of culture behind us just dealing with the whole "men act, women are" thing. One step at a time XD
hotsauceman1 wrote: Really? Alot of feminists in my classes(as in my Proff's) just seem to do nothing but complain about feminism and how it is portrayed and how women are portrayed. They sometimes act like Anti-feminist Feminist's.
Yes. Do you actually pay attention to the movement as a whole, or just a sparing few people in it? How many blogs have you read and what percentage of the blogs' posts have you read? What do you know of the movement's history? Etc etc etc.
There's always a vocal minority in the group. The "Difference Feminism" segment, for example, is a minority within the movement that I'm not entirely comfortable with.
Basically, the common perception of feminism on the internet is that this quote...
There are now women politicians, women soldiers, women scientists, women astronauts. But our mission is only half-done: we still haven't prevented men from doing those things!
... isn't a parody, it's what feminists actually think. And yeah, it pisses me off. Meh?
Melissia wrote: I wasn't talking about your posts specifically, but about the direction the thread was headed.
Ah, gotcha.
I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).
I'm also not directing this only at feminists. I kind of expect that a feminist would be more concerned with the women side of things than men, while being aware of the male side, but I never hear anything about masculinists. So where are the men in this debate? Setting aside my distaste for Saarkasian, it does show that women are active in the gender discussion, and the issue of women is common in the public forum. Men meanwhile are largely reactionary to it. I mean, how many threads show up on Dakka about the stereotyping of men? I think the only time I've ever seen it brought up is in threads about the stereotyping of women XD
I can definitely agree that when it comes to these issues, the men who actually bother to pettle their opinions are the ones I'd really wish weren't talking. Normal men (and by that I mean the non-crazy ones) just aren't involved. EDIT: And maybe those crazies and the negative perceptions of feminism are probably to blame for that... And laziness. Probably.
It's the same reason that similar movements for whites in racially charged debates are often labeled as white supremacist hate groups... because they act like white supremacist hate groups.
I can definitely agree that when it comes to these issues, the men who actually bother to pettle their opinions are the ones I'd really wish weren't talking. Normal men (and by that I mean the non-crazy ones) just aren't involved. EDIT: And maybe those crazies and the negative perceptions of feminism are probably to blame for that... And laziness. Probably.
I don't like masculinists either. They remind me of those white power groups that came up after African Americans started being treated like humans.
Those actually in power, whose social status is higher than everyone else (IE males vs females and transpeople, straights vs non-heteronormative sexualities, whites vs non-whites, etc) honestly have less to complain about and thus tend to try to belittle others when they complain instead. That isn't to say that there is nothing for any of them to complain about (indeed, there ARE many complaints about how societal machismo harms men in many ways, for example), it is, rather, an observation of those who actually are motivated enough to organize the movements in question.
Melissia wrote: It's the same reason that similar movements for whites in racially charged debates are often labeled as white supremacist hate groups... because they act like white supremacist hate groups.
Well, White's don't really have much to complain about. Men in the area of political rights don't have much to complain about either. The reexamining of gender roles I think hold's a different dynamic (at least in terms of how genders get portrayed in media and by society) Though such crazies are also indicative of my complaint. They aren't proactive in advancing the development of the idea of masculinity and how it should change to adapt to the expansion of femininity. They just cling to the old ideas like nothing is changing and react to stuff women talk about and usually they react with the ridiculous.
The Feminist Theory in and of itself is just a sort of Conflict Theory. And Conflict Theorists are cynical bastards who think that those with power want nothing more to keep it.
Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men, but we ALL hate the feminists because of how they portray themselves. If the Feminists could open their eyes to that, we could get a whole lot more done.
Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men
That is most assuredly not true in any way shape or form.
Slarg232 wrote: The Feminist Theory in and of itself is just a sort of Conflict Theory. And Conflict Theorists are cynical bastards who think that those with power want nothing more to keep it.
Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men, but we ALL hate the feminists because of how they portray themselves. If the Feminists could open their eyes to that, we could get a whole lot more done.
IF you could bother opening your eyes to what the feminist movement actually is instead of your own biases based off of strawmen promulgated by "Men's Rights" hate groups, perhaps you could actually see the feminist movement for what it is?
TVTropes, of all places, has useful notes on the matter. Feminism is a very diverse movement, and no one organization speaks for all of it-- certainly not the rather minuscule extremist portions. There is a lot of willful, deliberate, and arguably malicious misinterpretation of the feminist movement by its opponents.
Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men
That is most assuredly not true in any way shape or form.
Slarg232 wrote: The Feminist Theory in and of itself is just a sort of Conflict Theory. And Conflict Theorists are cynical bastards who think that those with power want nothing more to keep it.
Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men, but we ALL hate the feminists because of how they portray themselves. If the Feminists could open their eyes to that, we could get a whole lot more done.
IF you could bother opening your eyes to what the feminist movement actually is instead of your own biases based off of strawmen promulgated by "Men's Rights" hate groups, perhaps you could actually see the feminist movement for what it is?
TVTropes, of all places, has useful notes on the matter. Feminism is a very diverse movement, and no one organization speaks for all of it-- certainly not the rather minuscule extremist portions. There is a lot of willful, deliberate, and arguably malicious misinterpretation of the feminist movement by its opponents.
So tell me how you are going to get ANYTHING done if your so divided? A movement is defined by those who move it. Right now you (feminism) is moving in twenty different directions. Get yourself a single, unified organization to speak for what the feminist movement is and suddenly people can finally decide if they like or hate feminists.
My eyes may be shut, but I can still hear fine, thank you. I don't think your eyes are open either, considering how hostile and defensive you ALWAYS are on this subject....
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well, Who says what the feminist movement is? the minority or the majority? Because much of the majority are men hating cynical women.
Is there any truth to this or this mostly just anecdotal evidence?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well, Who says what the feminist movement is? the minority or the majority? Because much of the majority are men hating cynical women.
Is there any truth to this or this mostly just anecdotal evidence?
Mostly Anecdotal, but you see my point, It seems feminism needs to do some cleaning in their ranks if they want something done.
Slarg232 wrote: So tell me how you are going to get ANYTHING done if your so divided?
We HAVE gotten things done. Or perhaps you don't know the history of the womens' rights movement?
And do you know how much more you could get done if you actually got together and figured things out amongst yourselves? It's taken, what, 50 years for the first female vice president? Coulda done that alot sooner if there weren't so many feminazis...
Mind you, that might be near impossible with how indesicive most women are....
Maybe if you had one I might. As it is, you don't. You have almost no experience with the feminist movement, cite no actual evidence, and have no real proof of your claims, and yet you would go and declare us all to be "feminazis" and "man-haters".
There's nothing to be butt hurt about in this video, at all. She says that negative messages in popular culture, repeated over and over can have an influencing effect. That's true. She does not say men are stupid or hateful. She even says the games are fun. most of us can separate fantasy from reality, but it's pretty obvious to many people that nerd culture needs to play more nicely with the ladies.
Im not declaring all to be Man-haters. Im saying the most vocal are, so that is who is seen. If more women like you spoke out, it would maybe people would respect feminist's more often. But no, it is the feminazis that speak out so there for they are the face of the movement.
I do have a point, but you dont see it. And how am i supposed to give you evidence from lectures i had 2-3 years ago?
Maybe if you had one I might. As it is, you don't. You have almost no experience with the feminist movement, cite no actual evidence, and have no real proof of your claims, and yet you would go and declare us all to be "feminazis" and "man-haters".
I actually dated a feminist for a while. I agreed with almost everything she said; women deserve to be in the army, women deserve to be payed the same, men deserve patriachy leave or whatever the hell it's called.
The Feminist Movement is actually a great thing. Women deserve to be treated as equals. But here is why alot of men hate the movement:
Not necessarily those exact things, but that mindset.
@slarg: Disagree largely with that pic. I'll give you the bathroom thing and the hitting thing, but otherwise those rules are form the 1920s or so. It's not uncommon to see women paying for dates now, and a guy is NOT considered perverted for kissing a woman or touching her naughty bits if the timing is right (and if you have even basic social know-how, this should be fairly obvious); women actually WANT a guy to kiss them suddenly when it's appropriate. I hear lots of complaints about this sort of thing but rarely see it play out.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: @slarg: Disagree largely with that pic. I'll give you the bathroom thing and the hitting thing, but otherwise those rules are form the 1920s or so. It's not uncommon to see women paying for dates now, and a guy is NOT considered perverted for kissing a woman or touching her naughty bits if the timing is right (and if you have even basic social know-how, this should be fairly obvious); women actually WANT a guy to kiss them suddenly when it's appropriate. I hear lots of complaints about this sort of thing but rarely see it play out.
Maybe it is for you Can, but in my experiance those still hold true. Women don't seem to want to be equals, they seem to just want to have all the benefits without the drawbacks. Notice the bold/underlined word. Appearences are almost if not more important than what you actually want, and even knowing waht my girlfriend wanted in this area, she still hardly ever brought up some of the more negative aspects of being male/"dominant". For all her talk of equality, it was still me who had to pay, still me who had to go check out "the scary things in the night", and all that gak.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I guess im just confused about how im supposed to cite personal experiances.
Exactly. All you have is anecdotal evidence, nothing more. And the anecdotal evidence you DO have is outdated and suffers from confirmation bias.
Ok, prove to me that the movement isnt that, Prove that it doesnt have men hating feminazis. I know it isnt full of them, but they damn exist. I have had multiple proffessors that are Men-hating feminists all across my college tenure. They say one thing then the opposite, they say women should get payed as much as men, but they also deserve to have more payed time off for "Personal Reasons." Much of my experiance has been bad. And i know it isnt. I have met many women and read many amazing articles about women and the feminist movement that i fell in love with. But i had to look for those, I didnt have to look for the Feminazi's
Maybe it is for you Can, but in my experiance those still hold true. Women don't seem to want to be equals, they seem to just want to have all the benefits without the drawbacks. Notice the bold/underlined word. Appearences are almost if not more important than what you actually want, and even knowing waht my girlfriend wanted in this area, she still hardly ever brought up some of the more negative aspects of being male/"dominant". For all her talk of equality, it was still me who had to pay, still me who had to go check out "the scary things in the night", and all that gak.
Then get a better girlfriend? They're out there. That's like saying because one dude beat a chick that men seem to want to beat women. There's dramatic people in all genders/sexes/races/whatever, and there's chill people. Go for the chill peeps, and ignore what "society" says as there is no single person alive who 100% agrees with any standard or any other person.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I guess im just confused about how im supposed to cite personal experiances.
Exactly. All you have is anecdotal evidence, nothing more. And the anecdotal evidence you DO have is outdated and suffers from confirmation bias.
Ok, prove to me that the movement isnt that, Prove that it doesnt have men hating feminazis. I know it isnt full of them, but they damn exist. I have had multiple proffessors that are Men-hating feminists all across my college tenure. They say one thing then the opposite, they say women should get payed as much as men, but they also deserve to have more payed time off for "Personal Reasons." Much of my experiance has been bad. And i know it isnt. I have met many women and read many amazing articles about women and the feminist movement that i fell in love with. But i had to look for those, I didnt have to look for the Feminazi's
Mel doesn't answer things that she doesn't want to. Never has.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I guess im just confused about how im supposed to cite personal experiances.
Exactly. All you have is anecdotal evidence, nothing more. And the anecdotal evidence you DO have is outdated and suffers from confirmation bias.
Ok, prove to me that the movement isnt that, Prove that it doesnt have men hating feminazis. I know it isnt full of them, but they damn exist. I have had multiple proffessors that are Men-hating feminists all across my college tenure. They say one thing then the opposite, they say women should get payed as much as men, but they also deserve to have more payed time off for "Personal Reasons." Much of my experiance has been bad. And i know it isnt. I have met many women and read many amazing articles about women and the feminist movement that i fell in love with. But i had to look for those, I didnt have to look for the Feminazi's
So the majority of tabletop gamers are smelly, disgusting people and should be treated as such before being given a chance?
Maybe it is for you Can, but in my experiance those still hold true. Women don't seem to want to be equals, they seem to just want to have all the benefits without the drawbacks. Notice the bold/underlined word. Appearences are almost if not more important than what you actually want, and even knowing waht my girlfriend wanted in this area, she still hardly ever brought up some of the more negative aspects of being male/"dominant". For all her talk of equality, it was still me who had to pay, still me who had to go check out "the scary things in the night", and all that gak.
Then get a better girlfriend? They're out there. That's like saying because one dude beat a chick that men seem to want to beat women. There's dramatic people in all genders/sexes/races/whatever, and there's chill people. Go for the chill peeps, and ignore what "society" says as there is no single person alive who 100% agrees with any standard or any other person.
Key words was "used to date" dude
I could handle the her bisexuality, I could handle her feminist ways.
But I'll be damned if I'm going to handle being called a baby when the first time we have a fight she storms into my dorm room and takes "my toys back and delete my number off of your cell" while stomping as loud as she can.
Water under the bridge or where you want ot put it
No, you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that. Aside from the fact that proving a negative is nigh-impossible, I did not make the initial claim here-- you did.
YOU made the assertion of "the majority [of feminists] are men hating cynical women.", now YOU have to either prove your assertion or retract it. I merely deny that your assertion is true. It is your duty, as the one making your argument, to actually MAKE YOUR GODDAMNED ARGUMENT.
So, either back up your statements, or take them back and apologize.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I guess im just confused about how im supposed to cite personal experiances.
Exactly. All you have is anecdotal evidence, nothing more. And the anecdotal evidence you DO have is outdated and suffers from confirmation bias.
Ok, prove to me that the movement isnt that, Prove that it doesnt have men hating feminazis. I know it isnt full of them, but they damn exist. I have had multiple proffessors that are Men-hating feminists all across my college tenure. They say one thing then the opposite, they say women should get payed as much as men, but they also deserve to have more payed time off for "Personal Reasons." Much of my experiance has been bad. And i know it isnt. I have met many women and read many amazing articles about women and the feminist movement that i fell in love with. But i had to look for those, I didnt have to look for the Feminazi's
So the majority of tabletop gamers are smelly, disgusting people and should be treated as such before being given a chance?
While not all TT gamers are smelly and disgusting, at least one per FLGS is.
Just like not all Feminists are Feminazis, but at least one out of every rally is. Depending on the size of the rally, a whole lot more than that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: No, you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that. Aside from the fact that proving a negative is nigh-impossible, I did not make the initial claim here-- you did.
YOU made the assertion of "the majority [of feminists] are men hating cynical women.", now YOU have to either prove your assertion or retract it. I merely deny that your assertion is true. It is your duty, as the one making your argument, to actually MAKE YOUR GODDAMNED ARGUMENT.
So, either back up your statements, or take them back and apologize.
Prove that they aren't.
You are making the argument that "the majority of Feminists are NOT men hating cynical women", so you back up YOUR argument.
Feminism is based upon the Conflict Theory. Men have power, women want the same amount of power. The very basis of the Conflict Social Theory is CYNISISM.
Melissia wrote: No, you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that. Aside from the fact that proving a negative is nigh-impossible, I did not make the initial claim here-- you did.
YOU made the assertion of "the majority [of feminists] are men hating cynical women.", now YOU have to either prove your assertion or retract it. I merely deny that your assertion is true. It is your duty, as the one making your argument, to actually MAKE YOUR GODDAMNED ARGUMENT.
So, either back up your statements, or take them back and apologize.
I dont have to apologize. I didint insult anyone. I just pointed out my opinion. And if you want it, just check ut Anita's "Feminist Frequency" channel on youtube. one of the most popular feminists is also a Man-Hater.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: That doesn't prove anything at all. At least one of X is whatever the really bad extreme of X is. That doesn't really define or clarify anything.
Correct.
Just like there's always one conservative that is a screaming religious nutjob. There's always one liberal that's a nearly violent member of PETA. There's always one man that says "women should get back in the kitchen". And so on and so forth. We are a democracy, variation is not only acceptable it's even cherished. The extremist portions of the group should never come to define the group in question.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: That doesn't prove anything at all. At least one of X is whatever the really bad extreme of X is. That doesn't really define or clarify anything.
No, it doesn't.
What it does do, however, is allow us to say that they ARE there, and they might not be the one who is the most vocal, but they are the loudest.
Be honest, if you walk into a FLGS, are you going to be able to enjoy yourself as much due to the fact that the one guy hasn't showered in months? Of course not; it's a small building (All of mine are, anyway) and he damn well stinks bad. Doesn't matter how good of an experiance you have with the rest of the group, that blighter smells, and you don't want to go to that FLGS again if that guys a regular.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: That doesn't prove anything at all. At least one of X is whatever the really bad extreme of X is. That doesn't really define or clarify anything.
Correct.
Just like there's always one conservative that is a screaming religious nutjob. There's always one liberal that's a nearly violent member of PETA. There's always one man that says "women should get back in the kitchen". And so on and so forth. We are a democracy, variation is not only acceptable it's even cherished. The extremist portions of the group should never come to define the group in question.
Is that why Republicans are seen as incredibly pants on head stupid, due to Bush and Fox News, while Democrats are seen as evil money win at all cost politians due to Obama and his Health Care/Tax increases/and Colorado allowing Illegals to have finacial add while soldiers who defend this country can't even have tuition help anymore?
When I managed a comic shop, and at any of the shops I regularly gamed at, we kicked the dude out. That guy wasn't there. Ugly people were, but that's a different tale Even then, I would and I would just avoid that guy.
"One woman was a bitch? who needs any of 'em!" seems like a pretty terrible philosophy.
Edit: And the repub/dem thing is a bit of a separate topic as much of the propaganda is fueled purely with the intent to keep the general populace off-balance, whereas feminism vs. whatever-the-official-name-for-it's-enemy-is is a social struggle.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: That doesn't prove anything at all. At least one of X is whatever the really bad extreme of X is. That doesn't really define or clarify anything.
Correct.
Just like there's always one conservative that is a screaming religious nutjob. There's always one liberal that's a nearly violent member of PETA. There's always one man that says "women should get back in the kitchen". And so on and so forth. We are a democracy, variation is not only acceptable it's even cherished. The extremist portions of the group should never come to define the group in question.
And they all ruin it for the others. The Nutjob makes all chriistian seem like Nutjobs, PETA makes all ARA look crazy and that "Women in the kitchen" man makes all men look like jerks. IT may not define it, but it sure as hell is the face of many of them.
Except it isn't the face of many. It's just a vocal minority. Intelligent, rational people should be able to see beyond the apparent facade to find the truth of the matter, not merely making snap judgements and sticking to them regardless of what else comes up.
Whether or not the average human being is intelligent and rational is up for debate, but I expect the average Dakkanaut to be such.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: When I managed a comic shop, and at any of the shops I regularly gamed at, we kicked the dude out. That guy wasn't there. Ugly people were, but that's a different tale Even then, I would and I would just avoid that guy.
"One woman was a bitch? who needs any of 'em!" seems like a pretty terrible philosophy.
Unfortunately, it was the manager's brother :(
And no one is saying that, Can. It's just that, as a whole, I, and many people I hang out with, beleive women should be treated as equal in ALL things. However, due to how the feminist movement conducts itself, we can't take it seriously. None of us can.
Oh how the wheel turns.
) as part of daily routine. A matter of sensitivity, if you will.
) She even brings up your point that women get singled out by the boys club, and the comments are largely positive and in agreement with what she says. I'm even gonna repost the video just because this is the person people should be listening to, not Anita Saarwhatsernameicantspellit:
